Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIM 201 > PARTIES - cases > Flashcards

PARTIES - cases Flashcards

1
Q

ngamu v r facts

A

cheques stolen and altered and collected money from, each step by a diffenrt perosn

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

ngamu v r issue

A

who was the pricniple party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

ngamu v r

ngamu v r held

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R V PATTERSON FACTS

A

p tells mr b to go into flat and get a tv and gives key but isnt his flat to stealing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R V PATTERSON ISSUE

A

who committed the offnece

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R V PATTERSON HELD

A

innocent agnet will not be liable and the party that makes tgen commit the offence is viewd as constructiely perfrominh the offnece

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

police v b facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

police v b issue

A

did b commit the offnece

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

police v b held

A

yes he procurred the inncoent party to commit the offnece, dindt do the AR but had the MR

confimed innocnet agnecy in nz

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

ashin v r facts

A

group convivted for murder and appealed their conviction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

ashin v r law

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

LARKINS V POLICE FACTS

A

L was a look out for peopel robbing a store, yelled cops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

LARKINS V POLICE issue

A

did L aid in the comission to th offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

LARKINS V POLICE facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Charnley v r facts

A

c abetted a man to have sex, wtached and dindt intervene was seen as encouragemet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Charnley v r issue

A

can you abet an offence by omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Charnley v r held

A

you can abet an offence by omission as presence principal and duty principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

r v pene facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

r v clakson facts

A

girl raped at army barracks, accused convicted of aiding and abetting at they were in the room whiel it happned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

r v clakson

r v clakson issue

A

had the accused aided in commisonnson of the oofnce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

r v clakson held

A

presnece idciated encouragemnet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

r v pene issue

A

was p still guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

r v pene held

A

yes guilty as he still had the intention to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

r v witika facts

A

sposue abuse child while other encouraged the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

r v witika issue

A

did the other partuys inactivy amount to encouragement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

r v witika

r v witika held

A

inactivity amounted to encouragement, speicla relationship gives rise for a duty to intervene (defato qualitfys) and if child parent qualiy under 152

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

johnson v youden facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

johnson v youden issue

A

did the lawyers have the nessacery knowldeg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

johnson v youden held

A

the one who ‘knew’ did and it set out the set out the knowledge of essential matters test for MR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

cardin larent v commerce commission facts

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

cardin larent v commerce commission issue

A

is k a party to teh offnece

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

cardin larent v commerce commission held

A

yes k is a prty as he had knowldeg of the essentialty matter whihc made up the offnece

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

r v baker facts

A

b gave instructions to s how to open explosives, s and w break into premise and find expolsoves and dip

26
Q

r v baker issue

A

was the prisoner b liable as a sp

27
Q

r v baker HELD

A

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

28
Q

r v bainbridge facts

A

b sold equipment that was then alter used to rob a bank, knew was for soemthing illegal but didnt know what exactly

28
Q

r v bainbridge issue

A

did b have sifficinet knowldeg

29
Q

r v bainbridge held

A

yes b had suffifnet knowldege as knowing of something illegal is sufficnet

29
Q

r v maxwell facts

A

M knew the PP would likely attck by gun or bumb or firarm but didnt know what one

30
Q

r v maxwell issue

r v maxwell

A

did m have the necasary MR for SP

31
Q

r u KIMURA facts

A

K aided and abetting robbery for a PP but dindt know PP had the knife

31
Q

r v maxwell held

A

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

32
Q

r u KIMURA issue

A

can k be convited of aggrivated burglary when he only intented simple buglary and are these offnecs of the same type

33
Q

r u KIMURA held

A

no simple buglary and aggirvated are not of teh same type so not convited of aggrivated

CONFRIMED R V MAXWELL IN NZ

34
Q

R V HARTLEY FACTS

A

GROUP ASSULTING people someone pulled out a knife and H didnt know about the knife but has convicted of manslaighter as a sp

34
Q

R V HARTLEY ISSUE

A

was the judg correct in telling the jury it didnt matter if he knew of the weapon

35
Q

R V HARTLEY HELD

A

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

36
Q

heta v police facts

A

h stepchild of pp, hes 15, wacthes a victim step dad has taken hostage to see if they are untying themsleves

37
Q

r v curtis facts

A

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

38
Q

heta v police issue

A

did h intend to aid in the commisson of the offnec

38
Q

heta v police held

A

yes aided as it didt matter is he accpeted through fear, applied wentworth he had oblique intention

confirmed wentworth and denys pene

39
Q

r v curtis issue

A

couuld c be charhed under 662

39
Q

r v curtis held

A

c couldnt be charhed under 662 as there needs to be an establish common intention between the two parties

40
Q

r v o’dell facts

A

od drove b to commit a murder as was promsied money

41
Q

r v hubbard issue

A

can h be charged as a sp to arosn if he was unaware that pp was planning it

42
Q

r v o’dell issue

A

was of guiltuy and what section under

43
Q

r v o’dell held

A

66 1 was the section he was chargd under as was approprite here but sometimes prosecution will charge under both to conver all basis

44
Q

r v hubbard facts

A

arson COMMITEED after burglary

45
Q

r v hubbard held

A

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

45
Q

r v te moni facts

A

TM and m convicted or murdeirng a bank teller, tehy ahd agreeed to rob and bank and had laoded firearms

46
Q

r v te moni issue

A

was the murder committed in teh prosecution of the common offence

47
Q

r v te moni held

A

yes the murder was convited as there was a real possibilty the murder could have occurred , everythig a sp contmeplates as reasonable

48
Q

pakai v r issue

A

was 662 resonable in teh convictoion of p

48
Q

pakai v r facts

A

p was convicted as the pp in the murder, appeals on the basis that he didnt meet the requirements of 662

49
Q

pakai v r held

A

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

50
Q

r v rapira facts

A

plan to rob a pizza hut delivery driver, driver died follwoing the attack, all parties applealed

51
Q

r v edmonds issue

A

can e be convietd of manslaughter

51
Q

r v rapira issue

A

was a verdict of manlsighater available for a sp when pp was conviced of murder

52
Q

r v edmonds facts

A

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

52
Q

r v rapira held

v

A

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

53
Q

r v edmonds held

A

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

54
Q
A
55
Q
A
56
Q
A
57
Q
A
57
Q
A
58
Q
A
58
Q
A
59
Q
A
60
Q
A
60
Q
A
61
Q
A
62
Q
A

CRIM 201 (41 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions