Case Law Flashcards
Mulcahy v R
Conspiracy
Mulcahy v R
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself.
R v Sanders
When a conspiracy ends
R v Sanders
“A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged”.
R v White
Unknown Identities
R v White
Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties (one or more people) whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted even if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.
R v Crooks
Knowledge
R v Crooks
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.
R v Briggs
Wilful Blindness
And when is a person considered wilfully blind
R v Briggs
As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
A person is considered wilfully blind in only two situations, these being:
• where the person deliberately shuts their eyes and fails to inquire; this is because they knew what the answer would be, or
• in situations where the means of knowledge are easily at hand and the person realises the likely truth of the matter but refrains from inquiring in order not to know.
R v Mane
Offence must be complete
R v Mane
To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.
R v Cox
Possession
R v Cox
Possession involves two… elements. The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, often described as the mental element… is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession… and an intention to exercise possession.
Cullen v R
Possession for receiving, four elements
Cullen v R
There are four elements of possession for receiving:
(a) awareness that the item is where it is;
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen;
(c) actual or potential control of the item; and
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item.
R v Donnelly
Not an offence to receive
R v Donnelly
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
R v Lucinsky
Property received must be
R v Lucinsky
The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof), and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.
R v Kennedy
Guilty Knowledge
R v Kennedy
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.
R v Harney
Recklessness
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk
R v Ring
Attempted Theft
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
R v Ring
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was empty. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also satisfied.
R v Harpur
Conduct
“[The Court may]” have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops … the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
Police v Jay
Hedge clippings
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis
