Parties Cases

Question 1

R v Paterson

Answer 1

Innocent agency
An innocent agent will not be liable, and a party who procures another to commit an offence for them can be viewed as ‘constructively performing’ the AR of the offence.

Question 1

Ngamu v R

Answer 1

It doesn’t matter is a parties actions are not unlawful if they are still committing part of the AR of the offence (and have necessary MR).

Question 2

Ahsin v R

Answer 2

• Sets out requirements of withdrawal
• Encouragement does not need to remain operative at the time the principal offence is committed.

Question 3

Larkins v Police

Answer 3

Aiding
Facts:
- Principal party unaware of Larkins actions
Held:
Primary requirements for aiding

Question 4

Charnley v R

Answer 4

Omissions
Presence principle and duty principle in relation to omissions

Question 5

R v Clarkson

Answer 5

Omissions
Presence indicated encouragement.

Question 6

R v Pene

Answer 6

Omissions
Facts:
- Molotov cocktails
- Tried to withdraw
Held:
- Still liable
- Had intention to act

Question 7

R v Witika

Answer 7

Omissions
Failure to act may be encouragement if there is a special relationship with the victim giving rise to a duty to intervene
- Special relationship = defacto partners, spouses, children and parents

Question 8

Johnson v Youden

Answer 8

Knowledge of essential matters test for MR

Question 9

!R v Baker

Answer 9

Knowing the nature / character / kind / class of offence contemplated is enough

Question 10

R v Bainbridge

Answer 10

General knowledge of something illegal is enough

Question 11

!R v Maxwell

Answer 11

If you are aware a range of offences could occur, you have sufficient knowledge if one does

Question 12

R v Kimura

Answer 12

Secondary liability MR
Burglary and aggrivated burglary are different
Not the same type of offence

Question 13

R v Hartley

Answer 13

Different offences

Question 14

Heta v Police

Answer 14

Does not matter he acted out of fear

Question 15

R v Curtis

Answer 15

Section 66(2)
Held:
- Must have evidence of common intention
- Proof of actual assistance / encouragement is not needed

Question 16

R v Nathan

Answer 16

Section 66(2)
If you cannot prove a specific principal party, cannot attach liability through 66(2)

Question 17

R v Hubbard

Answer 17

Section 66(2)
- The cases where this apply are rare

Question 18

R v Te Moni

Answer 18

Section 66(2)
Secondary party saw murder as a reasonable outcome

Question 19

R v Cogan and Leak

Answer 19

Facts:
Although a man cannot rape his wife using his own body, if a man uses an innocent agent to do it, the man can be guilty of raping his wife

Question 20

R v Cooper

Answer 20

Brought R v Cogan and Leak into NZ law

Question 21

R v Shriek

Answer 21

Rules for encouraging:
1. There must be proof that actual or real encouragement was given.
2. The 1º party must be aware that the encouragement was given
- In group, just need to be aware of group encouragement
3. The encouragement does not need to be the or a reason the 1º party committed the offence.
4. In certain situations, the mere voluntary presence of the 2º party will qualify as abetting
5. The encouragement does not need to be operative when the principal offence is committed.

Question 22

R v Brough

Answer 22

Merely having the power to act is not enough for 2º liability omission

Question 23

R v Hagen

Answer 23

Held:
There can be some special situations where it is appropriate to charge both 66(1) and 66(2) as alternatives

Question 24

R v Gush

Answer 24

Section 66(2)
- Probable = means the event could well happen
- Not a balance of probabilities test