Short Answers - 3

Question 1

What was held in ‘R v Cottle’ (Burden of Proof of insanity)

Answer 1

To prove a plea, it’s enough if the jury is convinced that it’s more likely true than not, without having to rule out every possible doubt.

Question 2

What was held in ‘R v Lipman’:

Answer 2

If automatism is caused by voluntarily taking alcohol or drugs, the court may be hesitant to accept that the person’s actions were involuntary or that they didn’t intend to commit the offense.

Question 3

What is a “strict liability” offence?

Answer 3

Any offence that does not require an intent is called a strict liability offence and the only way a defendant can escape liability for such an offence is to prove a total absence of fault.

Question 4

What 3 points must be satisfied before a defence of compulsion can be used?

Answer 4

A person is not responsible for a crime if they were forced to commit it by someone who threatened to kill them or cause grievous bodily harm.
The person must have truly believed the threat and,
Must not have been involved in any plan or conspiracy to carry out the threat.

Question 5

Explain ‘entrapment’:

Answer 5

Entrapment happens when law enforcement deliberately tricks or encourages someone to commit a crime so they can be arrested and charged.

Question 6

Give two circumstances where culpable homicide is murder:

Answer 6

(1) If the offender means to cause death of the person killed

(2) f the offender intends to injure the victim in a way that they know could likely cause death, and they are reckless about whether the victim dies or not

Question 7

Define ‘Legal Duty’

Answer 7

It refers to those duties imposed by statute or common law including uncodified common law duties.

Question 8

Outline S163, CA 1961:

Answer 8

A person is not criminally responsible for causing someone’s death just by affecting their mind, unless they intentionally frighten a child under 16 or a sick person. This also applies to deaths caused by a mental disorder or illness resulting from such fear

Question 9

What is the required ‘state of mind’ for S167(b), CA 1961:

Answer 9

You must establish that the accused:
- Intended to cause bodily injury to the deceased
- Knew the injury was likely to cause death
- Was reckless as to whether death ensued or not

Question 10

You cannot use the defence of consent to assault in the following cases:

Answer 10

• Aiding suicide
• Criminal actions
• Injury likely to cause death
• Bodily harm likely to cause a breach of the peace
• Indecency offences
• The placing of someone in a situation where they are at risk of death or bodily harm

Question 11

Outline ‘R v Blaue’:

Answer 11

Those who use violence must take their victims as they find them.

Question 12

A ‘hearsay statement’ is admissible if any proceeding if:

Answer 12

(a) The circumstances relating to the satement provide reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable; and

(b) either -
- the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness; or
- the Judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness

Question 13

What was held in ‘R v Clancy’:

Answer 13

“The best evidence as to the date and place of a child’s birth will normally be provided by a person attending at the birth or the child’s mother … Production of the birth certificate, if available, may have added to the evidence but was not essential.”

Question 14

Define ‘automatism’

Answer 14

Automatism can be best described as a state of total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.

Question 15

What is ‘sane’ and ‘insane’ automatism?

Answer 15

Sane automatism: The result of somnambulism (sleep walking), a blow to the head or the effects of drugs

Insane automatism: the result of a mental disease

Question 16

What is the courts view on ‘entrapment’:

Answer 16

In New Zealand, courts don’t accept entrapment as a defence on its own. Instead, they leave it to the trial judge to decide if any evidence should be excluded because it would unfairly harm the accused.

Question 17

Outline the subjective and objective tests relating to S48, CA 1961:

Answer 17

Once the accused has decided that use of force was required (a subjective view of the circumstances as the accused believed them), S48 then introduces a test of reasonableness which involves an objective view as to the degree and manner of the force used.

Question 18

What was held in ‘Police v Lavelle’:

Answer 18

Undercover officers can offer the chance for someone who is already willing to commit a crime, but they can’t encourage or start the person’s interest in committing the crime.

Question 19

What is the procedure when ‘alibi witnesses’ are interviewed?

Answer 19

The O/C case should not interview an alibi witness unless the prosecutor requests them to do so. If an interview is requested, follow this procedure:

• Advise the defence counsel of the proposed interview and give them a reasonable opportunity to be present
• If the accused is not represented, endeavour to ensure the witness is interviewed in the presence of some independent person not being a member of the Police
• A copy of a witness’s signed statement from an interview must be given to the defence lawyer through the prosecutor. However, any information that could affect the credibility of the alibi witness can be withheld under section 16(1)(o)

Question 20

If the defendant intends to call an expert witness during proceedings, what must they disclose to the Prosecution?

Answer 20

• Any briefs of evidence to be given or any report provided by that witness, or
• If that brief or any such report is available, a summary of the evidence to be given and the conclusions of any report to be provided
• This information must be disclosed at least 14 days before the date fixed for the defendants hearing or trial, or within any further time that the court may allow - S23(1)