Case Laws Only Flashcards
Saxton v Police
Import
To import includes to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country.
R v Hancox
Import
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.
R v Strawbridge
Drugs
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.
Emeralli v Police
Drugs - Useable Amount
The serious offence of possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.
R v Rua
Drugs - Produce Manufacture
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.
R v Maginnis
Drugs - Supply
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.
Black’s Law Dictionary
Drugs - Administer
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
R v During
Drugs - Offer
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.
R v Forrest and Forrest
Drugs - Age
The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victim’s age.
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Drugs - Actual Possession
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
R v Koroheke
Sex - Genitalia
Genitalia comprise the reproduction organs, interior and exterior. They include the vulva and labia, both interior and exterior at the opening of the vagina.
R v Cox
Sex - Consent
Consent must be full, voluntary, free and informed. Freely and voluntarily given by a person in a position to form a rational judgement.
R v Gutuama
Sex - Objective Test
Under the objective test, the crown must prove that no reasonable person in the accused’s shoes could have thought the complainant was consenting.
R v Mohan
Intent
A decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s powering the commission of the offence.
R v Waaka
Intent
A fleeting or passing thought is not sufficient. There must be a firm intent of purpose to effect an act.
R v Court
Sex - Indecency
Indecency means conduct that right thinking people will consider an affront to the sexual modesty of the complainant.
R v Leeson
Sex - Indecent Act
The definition of indecent assault is an assault accompanied with circumstances of indecency,
R v Taisalika
Intent - Serious Assault
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.
DPP v Smith
Bodily Harm
Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.
R v Waters
Wound
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.
R v Rapana and Murray
Disfigures
The word disfigure covers not only permanent damage but also temporary damage.
R v Donovan
Bodily Harm
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.
R v Harney
Recklessness
Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.
R v Tihi
Specified Intent
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.
R v Wati
Proof of Crime
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.
R v Sturm
Aggravated Wounding
Under Sec 191 (1)(a), it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the intended crime was actually subsequently committed.
R v Sturm
Stupefy
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.
R v Crossan
Incapable of Resistance
Incapable of resistance involves a powerlessness of the will as well as physical incapacity.
Police v Pritchard
Burglary Intrusion
In each case, the aim of the legislation is the same, namely, to apply a particular criminal sanction for the intrusion into living accommodation.
R v Keen
Without Authority
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?
R v Collins
Burglary
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.
Pitman v Police
Burglary
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.
R v Edmonds
Bodily Injury
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.
R v Steele
‘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.
R v Skivington
Robbery - Claim of Right
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.
R v Lapier
Robbery Complete
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
R v Maihi
Robbery - Accompany
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.
Peneha v Police
Robbery - Actions of defendant
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.
R v Broughton
Robbery - Threat of Violence
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.
R v Joyce
Robbery - Two or more Person
Crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time of the robbery was committed or assault occurred.
R v Galey
Robbery - Common Intention
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.
R v Bentham
Robbery - Instrument not include body
A “thing” does no include a part of a person’s body.
R v Mulcahy
Conspiracy
A conspiracy is the agreement of two or more people to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
R v Sanders
Conspiracy Ends
Conspiracy is ended by completion of the offence or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged.
R v White
Conspiracy - Unknown Conspirer
A person can still be convicted of Conspiracy even if the identity of the other persons he conspired with remain unknown.
R v Ring
Attempts - Physically Impossible
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.
R v Harpur
Sufficiently Proximate
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.
Higgins v Police
Attempts
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.
Jay v Police
Attempts
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis was convicted of attempts.
Legally possible, physically impossible.
R v Donnelly
Receiving - Legally impossible
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.
R Pene
Accessory After the Fact
A party must intentionally help or encourage.
R v Renata
Principal Offender
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.
R v Larkins
Accessory After Fact
There must be proof of actual assistance.
Ashton v Police
Legal Obligaton
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.
R v Russell
Legal Duty (parent)
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.
R v Crooks
Accessory After the Fact - Knowlege
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
R v Briggs
Accessory After the Fact - Wilful Blindness
Knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquires that would confirm the suspected truth.
R v Mane
Accessory the Fact - Timing
To be considered an accessory, the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.
