CASE LAW by NAME

Question 1

SANDERS
What does this apply to?

Answer 1

Conspiracy - continues on until

Case Law - SANDERS

Conspiracy ends upon completion of the offense or its abandonment

“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 in which agreements are discharged.”

Question 2

MULCAHY
Application?

Answer 2

When is conspiracy complete

Mulcahy

Conspiracy consists of Intention and Agreement

“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 …”

Question 3

WHITE
Application

Answer 3

Unknown parties to conspiracy

WHITE:

If there is proof of conspiracy, one party can be convicted even if the others are unknown

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.

Question 4

RING
Application

Answer 4

Inferring intent

Ring -

Intent to steal was in his mind and demonstrated by his actions

R v Ring:
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim.
Unbeknownst 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 satisfied.

Question 5

HARPUR
Application

Answer 5

attempt

Harpur

Conduct viewed cumulatively

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 viewed in its entirety.
Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative.

Question 6

FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY?

What case laws apply?

Answer 6

Ring:
A thief putting his hand into an empty pocket.

Higgins:
Cultivating plants believing them to be cannabis when actually they are something else.

Jay:
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.

Question 7

LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

What case law applies?

Answer 7

Donnelly:
When stolen property has been returned to the owner, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it.

Question 8

PENE
Application

Answer 8

Intention vs Recklessnes

R v Pene

A party must intentionally help or encourage

A PARTY MUST INTENTIONALLY HELP or ENCOURAGE - it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.

Question 9

RENATA
Application

Answer 9

Principal vs Party

R v Renata

It is sufficient to prove the accused was either the principal or the party

The court held that where the principal offender cannot be identified, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED MUST HAVE BEEN EITHER THE PRINCIPAL OR A PARTY in one of the ways contemplated by s66(1).

Question 10

LARKINS
Application

Answer 10

Proof of assisting party

Larkins v Police

There must be proof of actual assistance.

While it UNNECESSARY THAT THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD BE AWARE that he is being assisted, THERE MUST BE PROOF OF ACTUAL ASSISTANCE.

Question 11

Ashton
LEGAL DUTY?

Answer 11

Ashton

A driving instructor has a legal duty

An example of a secondary party OWING A LEGAL DUTY TO A THIRD PERSON OR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS A PERSON TEACHING ANOTHER PERSON TO DRIVE. That person is, in New Zealand, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under s156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.

Question 12

RUSSELL
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?

Answer 12

Russell

Russell was morally bound to act, his inaction made him an aid and abettor

The Court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and BY GIVING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND AUTHORITY OF HIS PRESENCE AND APPROVAL TO HIS WIFE’S ACT HE BECAME AN AID AND ABETTOR AND THUS A SECONDARY OFFENDER.

Question 13

BETTS and RIDLEY Application

Answer 13

Parties - Extent of liability

R v Betts and Ridley:

A secondary is not liable to un-contemplated violence

An offense where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence

Question 14

R v Crooks
Application

Answer 14

Knowledge

R v Crooks

Knowing in a sense of having no real doubt

Knowing 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 IS INSUFFICIENT.

Question 15

R v BRIGGS

Answer 15

Willful blindness vs Knowledge

R v Briggs

…Knowledge may be inferred from WILLFUL BLINDNESS…or lack of inquiry.

Question 16

Levy

Answer 16

Levy:

Levy became an accessory when he removed equipment used in the offense

Levy was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to counterfeiting currency. Levy had removed equipment after it had been used by the offender in the counterfeiting process and after the offender’s arrest and the recovery of the moulds used in the counterfeiting.

It was found the Levey had done a deliberate act in relation to the evidence against the offender for the purpose of assisting that offender to evade justice.

Question 17

GIBBS

Answer 17

Gibbs helped the escapee evade justice by supplying him provisions.

Question 18

DONNELLY
(Receiving)

Answer 18

DONNELLY

It is not legally possible to receive returned property

Where stolen property has been returned to the owner
Or legal title 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.

Question 19

LUCINSKY

Answer 19

Lucinsky

The property received must be the property stolen

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.

Question 20

KENNEDY

Answer 20

Kennedy

Guilty knowledge must exist at the time of the offense

The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.

Question 21

CAMERON

Answer 21

Cameron

Recklessness is established if:
The defendant RECOGNISED that ther was a real possibility that:
His actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
That the proscribed circumstances existed; and
Having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.

Question 22

COX

Answer 22

Two elements:
(1) PHYSICAL, ACTUAL or POTENTIAL possession or control
(2) MENTAL, kNOWLEDGE it is in their possession and INTENTION to exercise that possession

Question 23

Besides COX, what other case law lays out the elements for possession and what are they:

Answer 23

Cullen

(a) AWARENESS that the item is WHERE it is.
(b) AWARENESS item STOLEN
(c) CONTROL (actual / potential)
(d) INTENTION to exercise control.

Question 24

MANE

Even though the PRINCIPAL may have pleaded GUILTY to the offence and been CONVICTED, the ACCESSORY is still entitled to what?

Answer 24

R v Mane created a rule that the ACCESSORY is entitled:
(1) To insist on PROOF that the alleged offence was COMMITTED
(2) To CHALLENGE that proof.