Case Laws Flashcards
Saxton v Police
To import includes “to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.
R v Hancox
Importing into NZ for the purposes of s6(1)(a) is a process.
The element of importing exists from the time the goods enter NZ until they reach their immediate destination.
R v Strawbridge
It is not necessary for the crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed. If honest belief if innocence, entitled to be acquitted.
Police v Emirali
the seriousness offence of.. possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.
R v Rua
The word produce or manufacture in 6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.
Offence is complete once prohibited substance is created, whether or not it is in usable form.
R v Maginnis-
Supply involves more than the mere transfer of physical control. It includes enabling the recipients to apply the thing… to purposes for which he desires
R v During
An offer is an intimation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other drugs of a kind prohibited by the statue.
R v Brown
defendant can be found guilty as follows: Offer to supply
• Drug on hand
• Drug that’ll be procured in future
• Drug he mistakenly thinks he can supply
• Drug deceitfully, knowing he won’t supply that drug.
R v Brown
The making of such an intimation, with the intention that it should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence.
R v Forrest and Forrest
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims age.
R v Cox
Possession involves 2 elements, physical element- custody and control. Mental element- knowledge and intent.
R v McGINTY
A judge was not required to refuse a warrant because the Police had not exhausted every conceivable alternative techniques of the investigation.
R v McGINTY
Disclosure of the identity of alleged informants was not required under the act.
However, the trial Judge was entitled to insist on disclosure if he saw fit.
