Case Law Background Flashcards
R v Ring
The accused was seen to hustle some women on a railway platform, and he put his hand in the pocket of one of them. The woman could not be located to give evidence, and accordingly there was no evidence that there was anything in her pocket to be stolen.
R v Sanders
Joy Elizabeth Sanders was found guilty on indictment of conspiring with one Laurent in August 1982 to import heroin into New Zealand
R v Donnelly
In R v Donnelly, a suitcase containing stolen goods from a burglary was located by police at the luggage office of a railway station. Police recovered the property and returned it to the owner. Donnelly subsequently visited and presented a luggage ticket at the office and asked for the suitcase. The suitcase and stolen property could not be provided to him because it had already been returned to the rightful owner. Donnelly was initially charged with receiving stolen property, but convicted of an attempt to do so.
R v Renata
In Renata three offenders beat a person to death in the car park of a tavern. The prosecution was unable to establish which blow was the fatal one or which of the three offenders administered it. The Court held that in matters such as these, the prosecution should look to proving culpability through mens rea and actus reus highlighted in s66(1).
Police v Jay
The police had found the respondent in possession of a plastic bag containing plant material which the respondent admitted he thought was cannabis sativa, and that he had purchased it from another person. On analysis the plant material was found to be hedge clippings. The Magistrate’s Court dismissed a charge of attempting to receive a narcotic contrary to s 6(1) of the Narcotics Act 1965. On appeal by the informant.
R v Mane
In R v Mane26, the accused was initially charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder, in that it was alleged that he gave assistance to the parties charged with the murder of another.
The assistance alleged was given after the victim had been shot and before the victim had succumbed to his injuries. Upon reflection the crown withdrew the charge and was granted leave to substitute a charge under s117(d) Crimes Act 1961, (wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice).
Larkins v Police
Two offenders (other than Larkins) broke and entered into the rear of wholesale liquor premises. The evidence suggested the entry took a little time. The occupier of a nearby flat was awoken by continuous banging, after which he called the police. The police arrived and saw two or three figures in front of the store, whom they pursued. Larkins was found shortly after in a nearby parked vehicle. Larkins stated that he heard at a party that some job was being planned, parked nearby and went to the bottlestore to see what was happening.
He saw some persons in front of it. He stood nearby, deciding that while they were doing what they were doing he could watch out for police and would call if he saw them. When someone called “cops”, he ran back to the car where he was found by the police. He was arrested and charged with breaking and entering together with two others with intent to commit a crime. The Judge held that Larkins had aided the principal participants in the burglary by acting as a lookout. A conviction was entered.
Ashton v Police
The owner of a motor vehicle who sits in the vehicle without protesting alongside a driver who persistently drives dangerously is implicitly encouraging the driver to continue to do so and may properly be convicted of aiding the driver in driving in a manner dangerous to the public or to any person.
R v Crooks
Lived with a guy suspected of stealing bottles of liquor and money from a tavern. Bell owed him money and gave it to him. When questioned he said “I know Paul [Bell] has not got much money and has a lot of debts around town. I just turn a blind eye to what he does and don’t ask questions.” and “I figured it was stolen as no one comes up with that much money.”
R v Cox
An envelope addressed to the house where the accused was residing, although not addressed to him, was intercepted by a Customs officer and was found to contain a substantial number of lysergide (LSD) tabs. After some substitution of the contents the letter was delivered to the accused’s letterbox, where he was seen to remove it. Later that day he was seen to place a number of objects into a car and drive away. When stopped and questioned by the police he initially denied all knowledge of the letter, but later said that he had placed it on a noticeboard in the house. The letter was not found there, and the following day the LSD which the Customs officer had placed in the envelope was found concealed in a carburettor located in the boot of the accused’s car.
Cullen v R
Mr C was charged with 19 counts of receiving stolen vehicles
The Crown’s case against Mr C was that he was a director of Tamaki Metals Ltd (Tamaki), a scrap metal dealer licensed under the Secondhand Dealers and Pawn Brokers Act 2004. Police officers found 19 stolen cars on Tamaki’s property following execution of a search warrant on 18 June 2009. Mr C denied knowledge of the existence of stolen property on Tamaki’s land.
R v Lucinsky
no evidence to show that the accused could have been guilty of the theft of this sum of £240, because the theft was committed in the car-shed between December 26, 1934, and February 6, 1935, and the accused had not been at his father’s farm within three years before the time of the theft. The count of theft has proceeded on the basis, and has been presented to the jury on the basis, that the accused’s brother, Maurice, did the actual stealing of the notes and that the accused was a party to their stealing
R v Kennedy
Another person had taken stolen electronic goods and ski suits to the accused’s house, and had left the goods in the accused’s garage in polythene bags. A month later police searched the accused’s house and found the goods. At the summary hearing the prosecution did not establish that the appellant had knowledge that the goods were stolen when they were first placed in his house.
