Case Law Stories Flashcards
Saxton v Police [1981] 2 NZLR 186 (CA)
In Saxton v Police1the defendant posted a parcel containing cannabis resin from London to an address in Dunedin. The parcel was intercepted by Customs, and on his return to New Zealand Saxton was charged with importing a Class B controlled drug. In his defence he argued that although he had exported the drugs from England, he had not imported the drugs into New Zealand, as he did not bring them in himself. The Court of Appeal held that “to import” includes “to bring in” but that the term also has a wider definition.
R v Hancox [1989] 3 NZLR 60 (CA)
In R v Hancox2 two parcels containing MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets were mailed from overseas to a post office box in Auckland. The defendant was arrested when she went to uplift one of the parcels, claiming that she had simply been asked to clear the box and had intended to deliver the parcel to the addressee. The Court of Appeal held that delivery into the post office box was the final step in the transit process and that the importation had ended; the woman’s involvement after that point could therefore not have aided or assisted in the importation.
R v Strawbridge [1970] NZLR 909
In R v Strawbridge4 the defendant was convicted of cultivating a prohibited plant, claiming on appeal that she had not known the plants she had cultivated were cannabis. The Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial, holding that the offence is not absolute and that mens rea is an essential element.
Police v Emirali [1976] 2 NZLR 476
In Police v Emirali5 the defendant was charged following a search warrant at his address in which minute quantities of cannabis were found. The Court of Appeal held that the purpose of the statute is not to prohibit the existence of controlled drugs per se, but to prevent their illicit use, and it was therefore necessary for the drugs found to be of a useable quantity.
R v Rua [2008] NZCA 38
In R v Rua6 the defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine after Police located a clan lab at his address. The Court of Appeal reviewed section 6(1)(b) and held that it does not create two separate and distinct crimes – the words “producing and manufacturing” are to be read as complementary terms.
R v Maginnis [1987] 1 All ER 907
In R v Maginnis9 the defendant was charged with “possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply it to another” after a package containing 227 grams of the drug was found in his car. He claimed the package had been left there by a friend, and that he expected his friend would at some stage come and collect the drugs from him.
The House of Lords held that the return of the drugs to the friend would have restored the friend’s ability to use the drugs for his own purposes, and the defendant therefore had the necessary intent for supply.
R v Brown [1978] 2 NZLR 174 (CA)
In R v Brown17 the defendant was charged with offering to supply tabs of LSD to an undercover police officer. Upon analysis the tabs he had represented as LSD were found to contain another substance which was not in fact a controlled drug.
“If the offer or shows some tablets to the offeree and intends the offeree to believe they are a certain drug, the reality of the matter is that it is the drug that is being offered, not the tablets irrespective of their true nature. The representation that it is the drug is the whole point of the offer”.
In confirming Brown’s conviction the Court of Appeal held that the offence of offering to supply a controlled drug can arise in a variety of ways (below)
R v Forrest and Forrest [1970] NZLR 545 (CA)
In R v Forrest & Forrest20 two men were charged with having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl who had run away from Child Welfare custody. At trial the girl produced her birth certificate and gave evidence herself that she was the person named in the certificate. The men successfully appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Crown had not adequately proved the girl’s age.
