Day 3: Evolution of the offence caselaw

Question 1

AP Simester and WJ Brookbanks

Answer 1

Guilty knowledge

knowing means “knowing or correctly believing”

Question 2

Mulcahy v R
Mulcahyyyy is a conspiracyyyy

Answer 2

Conspiracy is an AGREEMENT of 2 or more to do an unlawful act, or to do any lawful act by unlawful means

Question 3

R v Sanders

Ned Flanders doesn’t stop

Answer 3

Conspiracy does no end when the agreement is made, it carried on until the completion or abandonment of the course of action.

Important as two people could originally make a plan, and a third person could join the plan later and the third would still be liable for the same conspiracy

Question 4

R v White

Where is white?

Answer 4

You can charge one party for conspiracy even if the other is never identified

Question 5

R v Ring

Answer 5

Intent for attempt

Ring in pocket

Can be convicted if an attempt even if an offence is physically impossible

Question 6

R v Harpur
Har
Pur
Collective

Answer 6

Collective acts

Independant acts, when viewed in isolation, can be construed as preparatory. When the same acts are viewed collectively, they can take on a different context and therefore amount to an attempt.

Question 7

R v Mane
Main offence

Answer 7

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

Question 8

R v Crooks
Know you’re a crook

Answer 8

Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief that the person assisted was a party to the offence.

Question 9

R v Renata

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Larkins v Police

Larkins is being helped

Answer 10

While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.

Question 11

R v Russell

Russell and the kids

Answer 11

The court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children. He became an aider thus a secondary offender.

Question 12

R v Betts and Ridley

Are both liable?

Answer 12

An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part would not be held liable for the violence used.