Case Laws Only

Question 1

Saxton v Police

Import

Answer 1

To import includes to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.

Question 2

R v Hancox

Import

Answer 2

The element of importing exists from the times the goods arrive in New Zealand until they reach their immediate destination.

i.e when they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee.

Question 3

R v Strawbridge

Drugs

Answer 3

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, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

Question 4

Emeralli v Police

Drugs - Useable Amount

Answer 4

The serious offence of possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.

Question 5

R v Rua

Drugs - Produce Manufacture

Answer 5

The words “produce or Manufacture” in sec 6(1)(b) broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substance into a controlled drug.

Question 6

R v Maginnis

Drugs - Supply

Answer 6

Supply involves more than the mere transfer of physical control. It includes enabling the recipient to apply the thing to purposes for which he desires.

Question 7

Black’s Law Dictionary

Drugs - Administer

Answer 7

In the context of drug dealing, the appropriate meaning of administer is to direct and cause a drug to be taken into the system of another person

Question 8

R v During

Drugs - Offer

Answer 8

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 statute.

Question 9

R v Forrest and Forrest

Drugs - Age

Answer 9

The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.

Question 10

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Drugs - Actual Possession

Answer 10

The term possession must be given a sensible and reasonable meaning in its context. Ideally, a possessor of a thing has:

• Complete physical control over it
• knowledge of its existence, its situation and its qualities

Question 11

R v Koroheke

Sex - Genitalia

Answer 11

Genitalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior. They include the vulva and labia, both interior and exterior at the opening of the vagina.

Question 12

R v Cox

Sex - Consent

Answer 12

Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.

Question 13

R v Gutuama

Sex - Objective Test

Answer 13

Under the objective test, the crown must prove that no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought the complainant was consenting.

Question 14

R v Mohan

Intent

Answer 14

A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s powering the commission of the offence.

Question 15

R v Waaka

Intent

Answer 15

A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient. There must be a firm intent of purpose to effect an act.

Question 16

R v Court

Sex - Indecency

Answer 16

Indecency means conduct that right thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the complainant.

Question 17

R v Leeson

Sex - Indecent Act

Answer 17

The definition of indecent assault is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency,

Question 18

R v Taisalika

Intent - Serious Assault

Answer 18

The nature of the blow and the gash which it produced on the complainant’s head would point strongly to the presence of the necessary intent.

Question 19

DPP v Smith

Bodily Harm

Answer 19

Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

Question 20

R v Waters

Wound

Answer 20

A breaking in the continuity of the skin with the flow of blood and can be internal or external.

Full Definition:
A breaking of the skin would commonly be regarded as a characteristic of a wound. The breaking of the skin will normally be evidenced by a flow of blood, and in it’s occurrence at the site of a blow or impact, the wound will more often than not be external. But there are those cases where the bleeding which evidences the separation of tissues may be internal.

Question 21

R v Rapana and Murray

Disfigures

Answer 21

The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.

Question 22

R v Donovan

Bodily Harm

Answer 22

Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent, but must, no doubt be more than merely transitory or trifling.

Question 23

R v Harney

Recklessness

Answer 23

Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.

Question 24

R v Tihi

Specified Intent

Answer 24

In addition to the specific intents outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), it must be shown that the offender either meant to cause the specified harm or foresaw that the actions undertaken by him were likely to expose others to risk of suffering it.

Question 25

R v Wati

Proof of Crime

Answer 25

There must be proof of the commission or attempted commission of a crime either by the person committing the assault or by the person whose arrest or flight he intends to avoid or facilitate.

Question 26

R v Sturm

Aggravated Wounding

Answer 26

Under Sec 191 (1)(a), it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.

Question 27

R v Sturm

Stupefy

Answer 27

To cause an effect on the mind or nervous system of a person, which really seriously interferes with that person’s mental or physical ability to act in a way which might hinder the performance of a person.

Question 28

R v Crossan

Incapable of Resistance

Answer 28

Incapable of resistance involves a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity.

Question 29

Police v Pritchard

Burglary Intrusion

Answer 29

In each case, the aim of the legislation is the same, namely, to apply a particular criminal sanction for the intrusion into living accommodation.

Question 30

R v Keen

Without Authority

Answer 30

The three questions formulated for “without authority” by the judge in R v Keen were:

1) What is the authority asserted?
2) What is the extent of that authority?
3) Was it exceeded?

Question 31

R v Collins

Burglary

Answer 31

There cannot be a conviction for entering a premises ‘as a trespasser’ unless the person entering does so knowing he is a trespasser and deliberately enters or is reckless whether or not he is entering the premises of another without the other party’s consent.

Question 32

Pitman v Police

Burglary

Answer 32

There cannot be a conviction for entering a premises ‘as a trespasser’ unless the person entering does so knowing he is a trespasser and deliberately enters or is reckless whether or not he is entering the premises of another without the other party’s consent.

Question 33

R v Edmonds

Bodily Injury

Answer 33

Bodily injury need not be limited to direct physical injury and can include bodily harm arising as a result of shock produced by the weapon.

Question 34

R v Steele

Answer 34

‘To use’ may be limited to the offender revealing by words or conduct the actual presence of or immediate of the item so long as the accused have the weapon in their physical possession and readily available.

Question 35

R v Skivington

Robbery - Claim of Right

Answer 35

Larceny (or theft) is an ingredient of Robbery,and if the honest belief that a man has a claim of right is a defence to larceny, then it negates one of the ingredients in the offence of robbery, without proof of which, the full offence is not made out.

Question 36

R v Lapier

Robbery Complete

Answer 36

Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.

Question 37

R v Maihi

Robbery - Accompany

Answer 37

It is implicit in ‘accompany’ that there must be a nexus (connection or link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. Both must be present. However, the term does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous.

Question 38

Peneha v Police

Robbery - Actions of defendant

Answer 38

It is sufficient that the actions of the defendant forcibly interfere with personal freedom or amount to forcible, powerful or violent action or motion producing a very marked or powerful effect tending to cause bodily injury or discomfort.

Question 39

R v Broughton

Robbery - Threat of Violence

Answer 39

A threat of violence is the manifestation of an intention to inflict violence unless the money or property be handed over. The threat may be direct or veiled. It may be conveyed by words or conduct or a combination of both.

Question 40

R v Joyce

Robbery - Two or more Person

Answer 40

Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time of the robbery was committed or assault occurred.

Question 41

R v Galey

Robbery - Common Intention

Answer 41

Being together in the context of Sec 235 (b) involves two or more persons having a common intention to use combined force either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.

Question 42

R v Bentham

Robbery - Instrument not include body

Answer 42

A “thing” does no include a part of a person’s body.

Question 43

R v Mulcahy

Conspiracy

Answer 43

A conspiracy is the agreement of two or more people to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.

Question 44

R v Sanders

Conspiracy Ends

Answer 44

Conspiracy is ended by completion of the offence or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged.

Question 45

R v White

Conspiracy - Unknown Conspirer

Answer 45

A person can still be convicted of Conspiracy even if the identity of the other persons he conspired with remain unknown.

Question 46

R v Ring

Attempts - Physically Impossible

Answer 46

Defendant attempted to steal money by pickpocket. The victims pocket was empty however, the defendant was convicted of attempted theft due to his intent.

Physically impossible but still liable.

Question 47

R v Harpur

Sufficiently Proximate

Answer 47

Conduct was sufficiently proximate to the full offence and may be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done is always relevant, though not determinative.

Question 48

Higgins v Police

Attempts

Answer 48

The defendant believes he is cultivating cannabis but the plants are not cannabis, it is physically, not legally impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Can be convicted for attempting to cultivate cannabis.

Legally possible, physically impossible.

Question 49

Jay v Police

Attempts

Answer 49

A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis was convicted of attempts.

Legally possible, physically impossible.

Question 50

R v Donnelly

Receiving - Legally impossible

Answer 50

Where stolen property has been returned to its owner, another person can not be charged of receiving it (even though they know it had been stolen).

Legally impossible.

Question 51

R Pene

Accessory After the Fact

Answer 51

A party must intentionally help or encourage.

Question 52

R v Renata

Principal Offender

Answer 52

Where the principal offender can not be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principal or a party.

Question 53

R v Larkins

Accessory After Fact

Answer 53

There must be proof of actual assistance.

Question 54

Ashton v Police

Legal Obligaton

Answer 54

A person teaching another to drive has a legal duty to take reasonable precautions as he is deemed to be in charge of the vehicle.

Question 55

R v Russell

Legal Duty (parent)

Answer 55

The accused was convicted of “party to murder” as he failed to render assistance to his wife or children when his wife jumped in the swimming pool and drowned his two children. Accused became an aider and abettor through his lack of actions.

Question 56

R v Crooks

Accessory After the Fact - Knowlege

Answer 56

Knowledge means actual knowledge that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement of the offence is insufficient.

Question 57

R v Briggs

Accessory After the Fact - Wilful Blindness

Answer 57

Knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquires that would confirm the suspected truth.

Question 58

R v Mane

Accessory the Fact - Timing

Answer 58

To be considered an accessory, the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.