Elements cases Flashcards
Fagan v Commissioner of the Metro Police
A continuing act can be used to see contemproneity
R v Miller
If you create a problem with fire you have a legal duty to act when you become aware of the problem
Omission liability can be implied
Nicholson v Department of Social Welfare
“Forthwith notify” creates a one off duty to act
R v Larsonneur
There can be status offences when no act or omission is required in order to commit an offence
Kilbride v Lake
A novus actus intravenous may see someone excused from liability
Voluntariness is relevant; the accused needs to be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they’re going to commit the offence
Tifaga v Department of Labour
The circumstances have to be beyond the contol of the defendant
R v Wentworth
If a defendant knew with sufficient certainty that their actions would bring about the commission of the offence, they would be liable.
NZ Police v K
Motive should not be equated with intention
R v Martin
Wilful blindness = proof beyond reasonable doubt that:
- Accused had their suspicions aroused
- deliberately refrained from making further inquiries - wanted to remain ignorant
- Change from Crooks
R v G and another
Judge overules Caldwell and reestablishes subjective recklessness as the defining test
R v Tipple
Subjective recklessness will be used unless a statutory provision clearly mandates objective recklessness
R v Hay
Test for subjective recklessness:
- Defendant has to foresee the outcome as a likely risk
- Run it anyway
Failure to recognise risk = no liability
Cameron v R
If a statute doesn’t specify MR, you can use recklessness to satisfy the MR
Heihei v New Zealand Police
The defendant must have recognised the risk when doing the act, realising later does not satisfy this element
