Legislation Flashcards
S.267 (1)(a), CA 1961
14 yrs
Arson
- Intentionally or Recklessly
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any property
- if he or she knows that or ought to knows that
- danger to life is likely to ensue
S.267 (1) (b), CA 1961
14 yrs
Arson
- Intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any immovable property or any vehicle, ship or aircraft
- in which that person has no interest
S.267 (1) (c), CA 1961
14 years
Arson
- intentionally
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any immovable property, or any vehicle, ship or aircraft
- with intent to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person
S.267 (2) (a), CA 1961
7 yrs
Arson
- intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any property
- in which that person has no interest
(If immovable property, vehicle, ship or aircraft then would fall under (1) )
S.267 (2)(b), CA 1961
7 yrs
Arson
- intentionally or recklessly
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any property (excluding section 1 property)
- with intent to obtain any benefit or with intent to cause loss to any other person
S.267 (3), CA 1961
5 yrs
Arson
- intentionally
- damages by fire or by means of any explosive
- any property
- with reckless disregard for the safety of any other property
S.268, CA 1961
10 yrs
Attempted Arson
- Attempts
- to commit arson
- in respect of any immovable property or vehicle, ship or aircraft
Must have intent to commit the full offence.
Must take a real and substantial step towards achieving that aim
S.72 Attempts
S. 269 (1), CA 1961
10 yrs
Intentional damage
- intentionally or recklessly
- destroys or damages
- any property
- if he or she knows or ought to know
- that danger to life is likely to result
S.269 (2) (a), CA 1961
7yrs
Intentional damage
- intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
- destroys or damages
- any property
- in which that person has no interest
S. 269 (2) (b), CA 1961
7 yrs
Intentional damage
- intentionally or recklessly
- without claim of right
- destroys or damages
- any property
- with intent to obtain any benefit or with intent to cause loss to any other person
S.269 (3), CA 1961
7 yrs
Intentional damage
- intentionally
- destroys or damages
- any property
- with reckless disregard for the safety of any other property
S. 272, CA 1961
2 yrs
Providing explosives to commit an offence
- knowingly has in his or her possession Or makes any explosive substance or dangerous engine, instrument or thing
- with intent to use or enable another person to use the substance, dangerous engine, instrument or thing
- to commit an offence
Intent
There are two types of intention in an offence
- deliberate act: it must be an intentional act, the act or omission must be done deliberately
- intent to get a specific result (aim, object or purpose)
Proving intent
- defendants admissions
- circumstantial evidence
- what offender said before during and after incident
- offenders actions before during and after incident
- surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself
Recklessly
R v Harney
Consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk.
Defendant must be aware of risk and proceeded regardless (subjective test). That it was unreasonable for him to do so (objective test).
R v Harney case law.
Proceeds regardless of risk
Damages by fire or explosive
R v Archer
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent or temporary physical harm or permanent or temporary impairment of its use or value.
Can include: Charring Burning Melting Blistering of paint Smoke damage
Define Explosive
Means any substance or mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable either of decomposition at such rapid rate as to result in an explosion or of producing a pyrotechnic effect;
includes gunpowder, nitroglycerine, dynamite, gun-cotton, blasting powder, fulminate of mercury or of other metals, coloured flares, fog signals, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, and ammunition of all descriptions
Define Property
Property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, [money, electricity,] and any debt, and any thing in action, and any other right or interest
While the statutory definition is wide and includes a range of intangible things, only tangible property is capable of being damaged directly by fire or explosive.
However, intangible property may be damaged indirectly
Define ‘claim of right’
claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief [[at the time of the act in a proprietary or possessory right in property in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed]], although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed.]
Cause loss
In R v Morley
loss and held that criminality could only arise from direct loss; indirect losses such as expectation loss (loss of a bargain) and loss of anticipated future profits are not included.
, a deception case, the Court of Appeal reviewed the nature of
R v Morley [2009] NZCA 618
“Loss … is assessed by the extent to which the complainant’s position prior to the [offence] has been diminished or impaired.”
S.72 Attempts
1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object, is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, whether in the circumstances it was possible to commit the offence or not.
(2) The question whether an act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence is or is not only preparation for the commission of that offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit it, is a question of law.
(3) An act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence may constitute an attempt if it is immediately or proximately connected with the intended offence, whether or not there was any act unequivocally showing the intent to commit that offence.
R v Harpur
R v Harpur (2010) 24 CRNZ 909
“[The Court may] have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops …the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always
relevant, though not determinative.”
