PARTIES - cases Flashcards
ngamu v r facts
cheques stolen and altered and collected money from, each step by a diffenrt perosn
ngamu v r issue
who was the pricniple party
ngamu v r
ngamu v r held
all parties were PP, dosent matter if the act itself is unlawful it is the commitiing part of the AR A and having the MR - COG IN THE WHEEL PARTICIPATOON
R V PATTERSON FACTS
p tells mr b to go into flat and get a tv and gives key but isnt his flat to stealing
R V PATTERSON ISSUE
who committed the offnece
R V PATTERSON HELD
innocent agnet will not be liable and the party that makes tgen commit the offence is viewd as constructiely perfrominh the offnece
police v b facts
got inof off police database by getting someone elses code, argued dindt commit the offence under 661a but procured someone under 661d but dince that perons lacked the mr he cannot be guilty of the offnece
police v b issue
did b commit the offnece
police v b held
yes he procurred the inncoent party to commit the offnece, dindt do the AR but had the MR
confimed innocnet agnecy in nz
ashin v r facts
group convivted for murder and appealed their conviction
ashin v r law
66(2) may apply when the orginally intended offence is committed, aid/encouragement does not need to remain operative at the time the princople is commiteed, AR is compleet once encourgement is given
SETS OUT REQ FOR DEFNSE OF WITHDRAWL
LARKINS V POLICE FACTS
L was a look out for peopel robbing a store, yelled cops
LARKINS V POLICE issue
did L aid in the comission to th offence
LARKINS V POLICE facts
yes, extra pair of eyes
critized as pp didnt know of their presnec, added requiremnet for aiding an ofnec that pp doesnt need to know
Charnley v r facts
c abetted a man to have sex, wtached and dindt intervene was seen as encouragemet
Charnley v r issue
can you abet an offence by omission
Charnley v r held
you can abet an offence by omission as presence principal and duty principle
r v pene facts
all in car pp throw bombs and accused gets pout but doenst throw bomb and claim he wlaked over the side of the road to disassciate himself
r v clakson facts
girl raped at army barracks, accused convicted of aiding and abetting at they were in the room whiel it happned
r v clakson
r v clakson issue
had the accused aided in commisonnson of the oofnce
r v clakson held
presnece idciated encouragemnet
r v pene issue
was p still guilty
r v pene held
yes guilty as he still had the intention to act
r v witika facts
sposue abuse child while other encouraged the offence
r v witika issue
did the other partuys inactivy amount to encouragement
r v witika
r v witika held
inactivity amounted to encouragement, speicla relationship gives rise for a duty to intervene (defato qualitfys) and if child parent qualiy under 152
johnson v youden facts
builder got payment for hosue then instructed lawyers to act for him in the sale, one lawyer knew and thught was lawful , builder convicted and lawyers SP
johnson v youden issue
did the lawyers have the nessacery knowldeg
johnson v youden held
the one who ‘knew’ did and it set out the set out the knowledge of essential matters test for MR
cardin larent v commerce commission facts
CL was selling pjs that were not up to standard, K found out tehy were not up to standard an cl told k that he could sell pjs but couldnt advert as them being up to standrad
cardin larent v commerce commission issue
is k a party to teh offnece
cardin larent v commerce commission held
yes k is a prty as he had knowldeg of the essentialty matter whihc made up the offnece
r v baker facts
b gave instructions to s how to open explosives, s and w break into premise and find expolsoves and dip
r v baker issue
was the prisoner b liable as a sp
r v baker HELD
yes, wnet firther than were instruction it counselled and encouraged a crime, knwoing teh nature or kind of offnece contempplated by the pp is sufficnet
r v bainbridge facts
b sold equipment that was then alter used to rob a bank, knew was for soemthing illegal but didnt know what exactly
r v bainbridge issue
did b have sifficinet knowldeg
r v bainbridge held
yes b had suffifnet knowldege as knowing of something illegal is sufficnet
r v maxwell facts
M knew the PP would likely attck by gun or bumb or firarm but didnt know what one
r v maxwell issue
r v maxwell
did m have the necasary MR for SP
r u KIMURA facts
K aided and abetting robbery for a PP but dindt know PP had the knife
r v maxwell held
m had the necasary MR for SP, if you know of a rnage of offences you are liable for sufficnet knowldeg if one does occur
r u KIMURA issue
can k be convited of aggrivated burglary when he only intented simple buglary and are these offnecs of the same type
r u KIMURA held
no simple buglary and aggirvated are not of teh same type so not convited of aggrivated
CONFRIMED R V MAXWELL IN NZ
R V HARTLEY FACTS
GROUP ASSULTING people someone pulled out a knife and H didnt know about the knife but has convicted of manslaighter as a sp
R V HARTLEY ISSUE
was the judg correct in telling the jury it didnt matter if he knew of the weapon
R V HARTLEY HELD
yes the judge was correct to say it was irrelevant to know about teh weapon, althoght common assualt was given- fine distcitions between the types of offences may be given
heta v police facts
h stepchild of pp, hes 15, wacthes a victim step dad has taken hostage to see if they are untying themsleves
r v curtis facts
C J AND L live together and j kills l, convietd of murder and c is a aprty under 661 and 662, appealed on the basis that the judge should have not guven 662 as an option for jury
heta v police issue
did h intend to aid in the commisson of the offnec
heta v police held
yes aided as it didt matter is he accpeted through fear, applied wentworth he had oblique intention
confirmed wentworth and denys pene
r v curtis issue
couuld c be charhed under 662
r v curtis held
c couldnt be charhed under 662 as there needs to be an establish common intention between the two parties
r v o’dell facts
od drove b to commit a murder as was promsied money
r v hubbard issue
can h be charged as a sp to arosn if he was unaware that pp was planning it
r v o’dell issue
was of guiltuy and what section under
r v o’dell held
66 1 was the section he was chargd under as was approprite here but sometimes prosecution will charge under both to conver all basis
r v hubbard facts
arson COMMITEED after burglary
r v hubbard held
no as the fire was not a common unlawful purpsoe shared by the parties nor was it a probable consequnces, set out that 662 being relied on alone is rare
r v te moni facts
TM and m convicted or murdeirng a bank teller, tehy ahd agreeed to rob and bank and had laoded firearms
r v te moni issue
was the murder committed in teh prosecution of the common offence
r v te moni held
yes the murder was convited as there was a real possibilty the murder could have occurred , everythig a sp contmeplates as reasonable
pakai v r issue
was 662 resonable in teh convictoion of p
pakai v r facts
p was convicted as the pp in the murder, appeals on the basis that he didnt meet the requirements of 662
pakai v r held
no 662 was not appliacable, teh probabilties assement applies to the underlying AR in question, not to the prescison legal definiton that attaches to the act
r v rapira facts
plan to rob a pizza hut delivery driver, driver died follwoing the attack, all parties applealed
r v edmonds issue
can e be convietd of manslaughter
r v rapira issue
was a verdict of manlsighater available for a sp when pp was conviced of murder
r v edmonds facts
e and p part of black power, e was charged w manslaighter as a sp, the pp murder, e pled guilty to being part of an organised criminal group but not to manslaighter, appeals manslaightr
r v rapira held
v
yes, manslaigter avail, sp charged w manslaughter as they knew pp intended to cause gbh for the faciliattaion of the indened offense which here was robbery, all appeals were dismissed
r v edmonds held
no e cannot be convicted of manslaighter as there was no affilitaion and knowldeg of a weapon menaing it is insufficnet to sharing a comon intention
GETS RID OF THE KNOLDGE OF WEAPON REQUIREMENT THAT USED TO EXCIST
