Short Answers

Question 1

Manufacture definition

Answer 1

The process of synthesis, combining components or processing raw materials to create a new substance.

Question 2

Produce

Answer 2

To bring something into being, or to bring something into existence from it’s raw materials or elements.

Question 3

When is manufacture complete

Answer 3

Offence is complete once the prohibited substance is created, whether or not it is in a useable form.

Question 4

Willful Blindness

Answer 4

In terms of proving guilty knowledge, proof that the defendant deliberately turned a blind eye to the facts will suffice.

Question 5

Willful blindness case law

Answer 5

R v Martin [2007] NZCA 386
“… it will suffice if the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused (importer) had her suspicions aroused as to what she was carrying, but deliberately refrained from making further inquiries or confirming her suspicion because she wanted to remain in ignorance. If that is proved, the law presumes knowledge on the part of the accused. The fault lies in the deliberate failure to inquire when the accused knows there is reason for inquiry”.

Question 6

What must the prosecution prove in relation to Offering to supply or administer

Answer 6

The prosecution must prove two elements
• the communicating of an offer to supply or administer a controlled drug (the actus reus)
• an intention that the other person believes the offer to be genuine (the mens rea)

Question 7

Lack of knowledge case law

Answer 7

Martin v Police (1987) 3 CRNZ 373
Held: Criminality or want thereof is not to be determined by the lottery of the timing of apprehension, and in terms of whether memory is oscillating between conscious recall and unconscious mental storage. The nature of the type of case and of the defence of absence of knowledge requires a more specific evaluation of the nature of the defendant’s absence of recollection. In order for the defence to succeed there must be a total absence of memory.

Question 8

Can a person be convicted of an attempt to commit an offence.

Answer 8

Police v Jay [1974] 2 NZLR 204
Chilwell J held that the commission of the offence of receiving cannabis was not legally impossible, although in the circumstances it was factually impossible. As the respondent had criminal intent and did an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object he was guilty of an attempt to commit an offence.