Case Law - Explained Flashcards
Cameron v R (2017)
The Defendants were charged with dealing in a “Controlled Drug analogue” a Class C controlled drug, contrary to the MODA 1975. Jury found the substance was substantially similar to a Class B controlled drug, meeting the threshold for a “controlled drug analogue”.
Recklessness is a test based on the Defendants appreciation of the risk of the offence and their decision to run that risk anyway.
R v Archer (2009)
Defendant was charged with arson after setting fire to some toilet paper in the bathroom of a church, resulting in “blackening” to the top.
Court of Appeal ruled insufficient to determine “blackening” was charring or soot.
As damage could not be proved, Defendant convicted instead for attempted arson - usefulness may constitute damage, whether or not such a change amounts to damage is a matter of fact and degree to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
R v Harpur (2010)
Defendant was involved in a series of text messages with a woman talked about sexual acts on the woman’s 4 year old niece. Arranged a meeting, but when he turned up found that she did not exist. Charged for attempted sexual violation.
Court of appeal held that his actions need to be considered in isolation, sufficient evidence of his intent was available from the events leading to that point.
R v Morley (2009)
Deception case - Court of Appeal reviewed the nature of the loss and held that criminality could only arise from direct loss; indirect losses such as expectation loss (loss of a bargain) and loss of anticipated future profits are not included.
R v WILSON (2008)
The Defendant was attempting to manufacture meth at his rented property, when the Clan Lab ignited and the house burned down. Was charged with recklessly damaging the house by fire under Section 267(1)(b).
Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be convicted of Arson as his tenancy of property was an interest, therefore gave him defence.
ALTERNATIVE CHARGE - Permitting Premises to be used 12(1) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
