Elements of Offences Flashcards
Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
(UK)
CONTEMPORANEITY OF AR AND MR.
Defendant accidentally drove over police officers foot and once realised did not move off it.
Established the continuing act theory that MR can superimpose on a continuing AR.
Therefore, F liable as AR and MR occurred contemporaneously.
Held that MR and AR do not have to start at the same time.
R v Miller
(UK)
LEGAL DUTY.
Defendant falls asleep with lit cigarette and it alights his mattress. When waking up to the fire he simply moves to another room.
Question of law was whether an omission was implied by the words “destroy or damage” in the offence of arson and thus M liable.
Held that the meaning of damages can be stretched to cover not just actions but failures to acts as well.
Held that if you create a dangerous situation ought be it accidental, when you subsequently become aware of the situation you have a duty to counteract it.
Therefore, M liable as he failed to comply with a legal duty.
R v Larsoneur
(UK)
STATE OF AFFAIRS.
Defendant deported from the UK to Ireland, but on arrival the forced her back to the UK where she was convicted for violating her passport. Convicted for status offence.
Held that you can be convicted for a status offence when it was involuntary - but criticised.
Showed the courts absolute mindset in finding of status liability.
Kilbride v Lake
VOLUNTARY AR.
Defendant is convicted for failing to carry current warrant of fitness but claims that it was present in car when it was parked and must have been taken.
Held not liable because the defendant had no control over the circumstances so chain of causation was broken.
Held that the act or omission making up the AR must be voluntary (must prove causation).
Tifaga v Department of Labor
IMPOSSIBILITY.
Immigrant had permit revoked and did not leave NZ within the 21 day time frame because did not have the sufficient funds to leave. Defendant claimed defence of impossibility.
Held not applicable here because not all due diligence was taken by T as he should have had the funds on reserve for the event that his permit was revoked.
Held that you cannot claim defence of impossibility without having taken all due diligence which would have avoided the outcome.
R v Woolin
(UK)
UK INTENTION
Confirmed Nedrick that intention is held to “virtual certainty” threshold - which is almost always confined to cases only where the evidence of intention is an admitted action of the accused and the consequence of those actions.
Confirmed that foresight of consequence can be seen as evidence in which the jury may infer intention.
R v Matthews and Alleyne
(UK)
UK INTENTION and KNOWLEDGE
Appellants attacked and robbed (wallet) of an 18-year-old. After finding he had no money they drove him to a bridge, pushed him off and he drowned. The victim had told them he could not swim.
Convicted of murder because held that it was a virtual certainty that death could result due to their knowledge that he could not swim and thus virtual certainty that he would drown and die.
R v Wentworth
NZ INTENTION.
Defendant is a pharmacist who has been supplying drugs in excess to customer who is using it to make home bake heroin.
Pharmacist is charged for helping someone else in a crime. He defendant himself on the basis that he did not have the required intention because he did not want customer to procure drugs.
Held that where a defendant knows there will be multiple consequences the defendant should not be able to pick and choose between the known consequences of their actions. Clarified that intention is not about what you want to happen, but about what is a direct or known consequence of your actions.
Held that once jury satisfied with foreseeability of sufficient certainty then it means that the act was also intended.
Uncertain if UK standard of virtual certainty required. Good policy reasons that we want higher threshold to avoid conflating intention with recklessness.
R v Crooks
WILFUL BLINDNESS KNOWLEDGE.
Crooks received a sum of cash and drank alcohol provided by his flat mate “Bell”. Crooks had reason to believe money and alcohol were stolen but turned a blind eye.
Was this wilful blindness and thus knowledge?
Held that C did have knowledge.
It is the reason for the failure to enquire that is critical. If you just have a suspicion and fail to enquire you will not be liable, if you don’t enquire due to carelessness/stupidity you will not be liable. But if you don’t enquire because you fear what the answer will be that moves a suspicion into a belief = Mere suspicion is not enough.
Crooks decision not to enquire was fatal to his case because evidence suggests he would have had a belief that the goods were stolen (subjective test). For reasons that he knew Bell had no money to give him the large sum and buy the expensive alcohol.
Leading authority for cases dealing with knowledge, suspicion, belief and willful blindness.
R v G (UK)
Recklessness is subjective.
R v Harney
SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS.
Defendant (18) killed another young man by stabbing him in the abdomen in a street brawl.
Case excluded that when no thought it given to the risk it cannot be deemed as recklessness = shows judge thinks this is a subjective test.
The defendant made the conscious decision to use the knife knowing it possessed a serious risk (people had told him to put it away).
Statutory context may affect the meaning given to recklessness, but the general meaning is that recklessness is tested subjectively.
Recklessness is when there is an obvious risk but nonetheless action goes ahead = Recklessness must involve a conscious risk.
R v Tipple
SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS.
Appellant was supervising a ‘shooting party’ in his paddock adjacent to a road with “continuous flow”. The two complainants where having a conversation outside there car on the road and a bullet hit their car couple meters away from them.
Tipple argues that the bullet must have ricocheted of the ground and he said he wasn’t aware this could happen.
Held that T had knowledge of the risk. Because Tipple set up the target on the ground showed that he foreseen that there is a risk to people on the road if targets were positioned differently.
Confirms that recklessness is tested subjectively and requires a conscious taking by the accused of the relevant risk.
Degree of risk tested objectively = 3 experts held this element is satisfied.
R v Hay
SUBJECTIVE RECKLESSNESS.
Whilst standing in a puddle of petrol the defendant used an electric grinder which sparked, ignited the petrol and set fire to the building.
Defendants defence was that he angled the grinder away from petrol to mitigate the risk.
Case deals with whether when the defendant sees the risk and tries to minimise it, can they still be deemed reckless?
Held that no, not in this case.
Hay changed his act so that he thought the risk was minimalized, this meant there was no longer a subjective perspective of a risk and therefore not liable. (Example of stupidity lending some weight to credibility). = Hay did not reach the degree of foresight required.
“The fact that you are mistaken does not mean you are reckless”
“To be negligent is not to be reckless”.
