Formative 2 Prep Flashcards
Abduction - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 208 1. Unlawfully 2. Takes away or detains 3. A person 4. Without their consent or with consent obtained by fraud or duress 5. With intent to: (a) go through a form of marriage or civil union, or (b) have sexual connection with the person, or (c) cause the person to go through a form of marriage or civil union, or to have sexual connection, with some other person
Kidnapping - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 209 1. Unlawfully 2. Takes away or detains 3. A person 4. Without their consent or with consent obtained by fraud or duress 5. With intent to: (a) hold him or her for ransom or to service, or (b) cause him or her to be confined or imprisoned, or (c) cause him or her to be sent or taken out of NZ
Abduction of a young person under 16 - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 210(1) 1. With intent to deprive a parent or guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of a young person of the possession of the young person 2. Unlawfully 3. Takes or entices away or detains 4. The young person
Abduction of a young person under 16 (receives) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 210(2) 1. Receives 2. A young person 3. Knowing that he or she has been unlawfully taken or enticed away or detained with intent to deprive a parent or guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of him or her of the possession of him or her
Aggravated robbery (causes GBH) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 235(a) 1. Robs any person 2. At the time of, OR immediately before, OR immediately after, the robbery, causes GBH 3. To any person
Aggravated robbery (together with any other person) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 235(b) 1. Being together with any other person or persons 2. Robs 3. Any person
Aggravated robbery (being armed with an offensive weapon) - ingredients
Crimes Act 1961 - S235(c) 1. Being armed with any offensive weapon OR instrument OR any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument 2. Robs 3. Any other person
Assault with intent to rob (causes GBH) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(a) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Causes GBH to that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (armed with offensive weapon) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(b) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Being armed with any offensive weapon OR instrument OR any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument 3. Assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (together with any other person) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(c) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Being together with any other person 3. Assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(2) 1. Assaults any person 2. With intent to rob that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(2) 1. Assaults any person 2. With intent to rob that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (together with any other person) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(c) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Being together with any other person 3. Assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (armed with offensive weapon) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(b) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Being armed with any offensive weapon OR instrument OR any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument 3. Assaults that person or any other person
Assault with intent to rob (causes GBH) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 236(1)(a) 1. With intent to rob any person 2. Causes GBH to that person or any other person
Aggravated robbery (being armed with an offensive weapon) - ingredients
Crimes Act 1961 - S235(c) 1. Being armed with any offensive weapon OR instrument OR any thing appearing to be such a weapon or instrument 2. Robs 3. Any other person
Aggravated robbery (together with any other person) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 235(b) 1. Being together with any other person or persons 2. Robs 3. Any person
Aggravated robbery (causes GBH) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 235(a) 1. Robs any person 2. At the time of, OR immediately before, OR immediately after, the robbery, causes GBH 3. To any person
Arson (danger to life) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 267(1)(a) 1. Intentionally OR recklessly 2. Damages by fire OR damages by means of any explosive 3. Any property 4. If he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to ensue
Arson (vehicle/immovable property - no interest) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 267(1)(b) 1. Intentionally OR recklessly 2. Without claim of right 3. Damages by fire OR damages by means of any explosive 4. Any immovable property OR vehicle OR ship OR aircraft 5. In which that person has no interest
Arson (obtain benefit or cause loss) - ingredients
Crimes act 1961 - section 267(1)(c) 1. Intentionally 2. Damages by fire OR damages by means of any explosive 3. Any immovable property OR vehicle OR ship OR aircraft 4. With intent 5. To obtain any benefit OR cause loss to any other person
Cameron v R
(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd - Recklessness)
Recklessness is established if: (a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and (b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable Application: recklessness
R v Tipple
(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below - Recklessness)
(Application: recklessness)
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Application: recklessness
R v Crossan
(They CROSS over)
(Application: incapable of resistance)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
Application: incapable of resistance
R v Wellard
(It’s ‘well hard’ to carry a person away)
(Application: kidnapping (takes away)
The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be”.
Application: kidnapping (takes away)
R v Pryce (Pryce - price - $$$ = ransom)
(Application: kidnapping (detains)
Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody”. This is to be contrasted with the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.
Application: kidnapping (detains)
R v Mohi
(Mohi - Mohair - from an Angoran goat - intends to shave the goat for the mohair at the time of taking him away)
The offence is committed at the time of the taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary … that the Crown should show the intent was carried out. Application: kidnapping/abduction - offence complete
R v Chartrand
(He sharted and ran when he was busted for abduction)
(Application: abduction (young person)
“Whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive, or intended to interfere with possession for a very short time is beside the point”.
Application: abduction (young person)
R v Cox
(Coxen in a rowing 8 - think of a coxen in a rowing 8 - steroids for the team are in the back but he knows where they are - they’re under his control and he has an intention to dish them out to the team before the race)
Possession involves two … elements.
The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control.
The second, often described as the mental element … is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession … and an intention to exercise possession.
Application: possession
R v Lapier
(Lapier - Lap - The robber had the stolen phone on his ‘Lap’ while he rode away but the phone fell out of his ‘Lap’).
(Application: Robbery complete)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
Application: Robbery complete
R v Skivington
(Give me back my skivvies!)
(Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.)
Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery.
Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.
R v Peat
(P - Purge)
(Application: robbery complete.)
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.
Application: robbery complete.
R v Maihi
(“MAy I HIt you?” … 2 hours later - steals wallet - not enough of a nexus to link to robbery)
“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 .… “
Application: robbery nexus
Peneha v Police
(Powerful Peneha)
(Application: violence – robbery)
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.
Application: violence – robbery
R v Broughton
(Unless the money or property is handed over, violence will be Brought-on)
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“.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Pacholko
(Pacholko the Russian gangster does not scare you)
(Application: threat of violence – robbery)
The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened‘.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Wells
(A do gooder getting pushed down a well by an offender when they intervene in a robbery)
There is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.
Application: to any person – robbery
R v Joyce
(Joyce - choice = two mates - “Choice bro! Hi five! We robbed that bitch!”
“The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred“.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Galey
(Galey - Gay bashing - almost always a team of offenders - pack mentality)
(Application: together with – robbery - remember: common intention; combined force)
Two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Bentham
(Aggravated robbery using a ham can be prosecuted. If you’re ham is missing you will be acquitted)
“What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing.” Application: armed with – offensive weapon
R v Morley
(My intent to deceive grows morely day by day)
An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception. Application: intent to deceive – deception
Simester and Brookbanks
(Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage)
The ‘thing‘ must be tangible and must be capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage.
Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage
Morley v R
(Morley - More - More Money - less money - the victim has suffered loss of money from the arson of their vehicle)
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the (offence) has been diminished or impaired.”
Application: cause loss
R v Archer
(Archer with a flaming arrow)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value. Application: damage to property
R v Wilson
(Donald Trump interersted in tenanting Wilson parking buildings)
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest in it. Application: interest in property
Cameron v R
(Shane Cameron the ex-boxer hiffing a full can of baked beans recklessly into a crowd - Recklessness)
Recklessness is established if: (a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and (b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable Application: recklessness
R v Tipple
(I’m going to ‘Tip all’ these stones off the bridge and onto the cars below - Recklessness)
(Application: recklessness)
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires “a deliberate decision to run the risk”.
Application: recklessness
R v Crossan
(They CROSS over)
(Application: incapable of resistance)
Incapable of resistance includes a powerlessness of the will as well as a physical incapacity.
Application: incapable of resistance
R v Wellard
(It’s ‘well hard’ to carry a person away)
(Application: kidnapping (takes away)
The essence of the offence of kidnapping is the “deprivation of liberty coupled with a carrying away from the place where the victim wants to be”.
Application: kidnapping (takes away)
R v Pryce (Pryce - price - $$$ = ransom)
(Application: kidnapping (detains)
Detaining is an active concept meaning to “keep in confinement or custody”. This is to be contrasted with the passive concept of “harbouring” or mere failure to hand over.
Application: kidnapping (detains)
R v Mohi
(Mohi - Mohair - from an Angoran goat - intends to shave the goat for the mohair at the time of taking him away)
The offence is committed at the time of the taking away, so long as there is, at that moment, the necessary intent. It has never been regarded as necessary … that the Crown should show the intent was carried out. Application: kidnapping/abduction - offence complete
R v Chartrand
(He sharted and ran when he was busted for abduction)
(Application: abduction (young person)
“Whether the defendant may have had an innocent motive, or intended to interfere with possession for a very short time is beside the point”.
Application: abduction (young person)
R v Cox
(Coxen in a rowing 8 - think of a coxen in a rowing 8 - steroids for the team are in the back but he knows where they are - they’re under his control and he has an intention to dish them out to the team before the race)
Possession involves two … elements.
The first, often called the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control.
The second, often described as the mental element … is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession … and an intention to exercise possession.
Application: possession
R v Lapier
(Lapier - Lap - The robber had the stolen phone on his ‘Lap’ while he rode away but the phone fell out of his ‘Lap’).
(Application: Robbery complete)
Robbery is complete the instant the property is taken, even if possession by the thief is only momentary.
Application: Robbery complete
R v Skivington
(Give me back my skivvies!)
(Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.)
Defence to theft (claim of right) is a defence to robbery.
Application: claim of right – defence to robbery.
R v Peat
(P - Purge)
(Application: robbery complete.)
The immediate return of goods by the robber does not purge the offence.
Application: robbery complete.
R v Maihi
(“MAy I HIt you?” … 2 hours later - steals wallet - not enough of a nexus to link to robbery)
“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 .… “
Application: robbery nexus
Peneha v Police
(Powerful Peneha)
(Application: violence – robbery)
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.
Application: violence – robbery
R v Broughton
(Unless the money or property is handed over, violence will be Brought-on)
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“.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Pacholko
(Pacholko the Russian gangster does not scare you)
(Application: threat of violence – robbery)
The actual presence or absence of fear on the part of the complainant is not the yardstick. It is the conduct of the accused which has to be assessed rather than ‘the strength of the nerves of the person threatened‘.
Application: threat of violence – robbery
R v Wells
(A do gooder getting pushed down a well by an offender when they intervene in a robbery)
There is no requirement that the harm be inflicted on the victim of the robbery, thus infliction of harm to a person seeking to prevent the escape of the offender would come within the section.
Application: to any person – robbery
R v Joyce
(Joyce - choice = two mates - “Choice bro! Hi five! We robbed that bitch!”
“The crown must establish that at least two persons were physically present at the time the robbery was committed or the assault occurred“.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Galey
(Galey - Gay bashing - almost always a team of offenders - pack mentality)
(Application: together with – robbery)
Two or more persons having the common intention to use their combined force, either in any event or as circumstances might require, directly in the perpetration of the crime.
Application: together with – robbery
R v Bentham
(Aggravated robbery using a ham can be prosecuted. If your ham is missing you will be acquitted)
“What is possessed must under the definition be a thing. A person’s hand or fingers are not a thing.” Application: armed with – offensive weapon
R v Morley
(My intent to deceive grows morely day by day)
An intention to deceive requires that the deception is practised in order to deceive the affected party. Purposeful intent is necessary and must exist at the time of the deception. Application: intent to deceive – deception
Simester and Brookbanks
(Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage)
The ‘thing‘ must be tangible and must be capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage.
Application: thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage
Morley v R
(Morley - More - More Money - less money - the victim has suffered loss of money from the arson of their vehicle)
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the (offence) has been diminished or impaired.”
Application: cause loss
R v Archer
(Archer with a flaming arrow)
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value. Application: damage to property
R v Wilson
(Donald Trump interersted in tenanting Wilson parking buildings)
Tenancy of a property constitutes an interest in it. Application: interest in property
