Case Law Background Flashcards
R v Hayes (background)
In 1997, Hayes, a primary teacher, was involved in a motor accident and injured her neck. She began receiving weekly compensation payments from Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). She continued to submit medical certificates to ACC over an eight year period to obtain payments. She certified she was not working and was unable work when in fact she was involved, successively, in running two companies and actively assisted her partner with physical work.
Hayes’ argument was that she honestly believed her declarations regarding her capacity to work related only to capacity to work in her pre-accident occupation as a teacher; further, that she honestly believed she was entitled to receive weekly compensation payments.
Through a misdirection given to the jury, the convictions for deception were set aside and a new trial ordered, however the discussion over the terms within the legislation has value.
R v Misic (background)
Appeal against conviction and sentence for offences relating to fraudulent use of computer program to evade being billed for international phone calls.
Appellant downloaded program from Internet onto his computer enabling him to make international calls without being charged.
Appellant operated system where he and his friends made large number of overseas calls without charge.
R v Morley (background)
Charges arose in relation to four separate properties which appellant had attempted to purchase.
Agreements for sale and purchase were signed in relation to three of properties but not fourth.
Crown case claimed appellant represented had means to fulfil contracts with intention to deceive.
Claimed vendors acted in various ways in reliance on truth of representations and suffered financial losses.
R v McKay (background)
In R v McKay25, the defendant booked into a motel and offered to pay in advance. He was told to pay in the morning when leaving although the following morning he left without paying.
R v Cox (background)
Appellant convicted of possession for supply of lysergide (LSD) contrary to (NZ) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (Act) s 6(1)(f).
Customs officer intercepted envelope containing substantial number of LSD addressed to appellant’s residence but under name of third persons and delivered envelope at appellant’s mailbox.
Appellant took envelope and later left residence with daughter.
Detectives stopped appellant and questioned appellant but declined to answer.
Found later on appellant’s vehicle hidden on carburettor presence of LSD.
Appellant claimed number of people used to have mail sent to appellant’s address but got curious on particular envelope and found LSD.
Claimed decided to take LSD away and keep hidden until decided what to do.
Fisher v Raven (background)
Credit by, obtaining — Undischarged bankrupt — Contracts to make paintings from photographs — Payments received in advance — Failure to carry out work — No intention to do work at time payments received
R v Laverty (background)
This was an appeal by Charles Laverty from his conviction on 27 November 1969 at Aylesbury Quarter Sessions before the deputy chairman (L J Verney Esq) and a jury of obtaining £65 in cash and a valuable security, namely a cheque for £165, by deception
