Case Law

Question 1

Recklessness case law

Answer 1

R v Harney [1987] 2 NZLR 576 (CA)
“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.”

Question 2

Damage Case Law

Answer 2

R v Archer [2009] NZCA 543
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.

Question 3

Cause Loss case law

Answer 3

R v Morley [2009] NZCA 618
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the [offence] has been diminished or impaired.”

Question 4

Attempts case Law

Answer 4

R v Harpur (2010) 24 CRNZ 909
“[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.”

Question 5

Possession of explosive substance

Answer 5

Tv HALLAM
On a charge of knowingly having possession of an explosive substance it must be proved that the offender knowingly had the substance in his possession and also that they knew it to be an explosive substance.

Question 6

Recklessness case law 2

Answer 6

Cameron v R

Recklessness is established if:
a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
i) his or her actins would bring out the prescribed result, and/or
ii ) that the prescribed circumstances existed; and
b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.