Case law only Flashcards
Mulcahy v R
A conspiracy consists…
(More than intent, agreement)
Mulcahy v R
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.
R v Sanders
A conspiracy does not…
(When a conspiracy ends)
R v Sanders
“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 by which agreements are discharged”.
R v White
Where you can prove…
(Unknown Identities)
R v White
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.
Of note
A person cannot conspire alone; there must be another conspirator for an offence to be committed.
R v Ring
In this case
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
R v Ring
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim.
Unbeknown 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 also satisfied.
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
R v Harpur
Conduct
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.”
Police v Jay
A…
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
(Physical impossible, legally possible)
R v Donnelly
Where stolen property…
(Physically possible, legally impossible)
R v Donnelly
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or
legal title to any such property 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.
(Physically possible, legally impossible)
R v Pene
A party must…
Intentionally help
R v Pene
A party must intentionally help or encourage
it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.
R v Renata
The Court held…
R v Renata
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).
Larkins v Police
While it is unnecessary…
Actual proof of assistance
And Examples of assistance
Larkins v Police
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.
- Keeping lookout for someone committing a burglary.
- Providing a screwdriver to someone interfering with a motor vehicle.
- Telling an associate when a neighbour is away from their home so as to allow the opportunity to commit a burglary.
Ashton v Police
An example of a…
Ashton v Police
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.
R v Russell
The court held that…
Special Relationship
R v Russell
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 aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender.
R v Betts and Ridley
An offence where…
R v Betts and Ridley
An offence 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 used.
R v Crooks
Knowledge means…
R v Crooks
Knowledge 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 of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.
R v Briggs
As with a receiving…
Wilful Blindness
And when is a person considered wilfully blind
R v Briggs
As with a receiving charge under s246(1),
knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness
or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
A person is considered wilfully blind in only two situations, these being:
• where the person deliberately shuts their eyes and fails to inquire; this is because they knew what the answer would be, or
• in situations where the means of knowledge are easily at hand and the person realises the likely truth of the matter but refrains from inquiring in order not to know.
