Socrative Flashcards
When does the offence of Conspiracy exist under S310 of the CA1961 & when is the offence complete
The offence exists when there is an agreement between 2 or more people to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. The offence is complete upon the agreement being made with the required intent.
Re attempts, what is the “Test for Proximity” as outlined by Simester & Brookbanks
commenced execution, taken a step in the actual crime itself.
Hayden tries to steal Acton’s yellow plaid shirt by reaching into Actons gym bag in the locker room at work, believing this is where Acton keeps his stepping out threads for after class. It turns out the bag contains only shirts of more subdued hues of blues & greens which Hayden isnt interested in so he takes nothing and skulks back to his desk to do some more study. Is Hayden guilty of attempting to steal the yellow shirt.
Case Law
A No because it was factually impossible, given that the shirt wasn’t in the bag.
B Yes you can still be guilty of an attempt when it is factually impossible to complete the full offence (R v Ring)
C No, Clearly Hayden never had the intent to steal Actons shirt as Hayden is way to fly to ever want to wear a Yellow shirt
R v Ring
B Yes you can still be guilty of an attempt when it is factually impossible to complete the full offence (R v Ring)
Conan finally loses his cool at Laura for her constant elder abuse, and throws a solid state laptop at her noggin to teach her a lesson. The laptop kills Laura instantly and Conan never has a chance to tell her how much he really appreciates her. Conan has murdered Laura. He grieves the loss of the shattered laptop which is only a stupid i-thing anyway, then buries Laura in the Waitaks; having as he does little respect for the natural beauty of West Auckland given that he was born and raised a Shore Boy. His sleeveless puffer jacket is covered in dark wet soil and blood, he turns up at Kristis place where the lamps are burning long into the night as she chants liabilities aloud like a mad woman. Conan knocks on the door and asks Kirsti if she needs some help studying; he would be happy to talk to her at length about onion browsers or some such is she would do him a favour and chuck his grubby sleeveless puffer jacket in the wash for him. Kirsti obliges as she is much kinder than Laura when it comes to elder care.
Kirsti is guilty of being an Accessory after the fact to Laura’s murder T or F
False
At the time of the assistance being given, an accessory must possess the knowledge that;
an offence has been committed,
and
the person they are assisting was a party (principal or secondary) to that offence.
What held in the case of R v Betts and Ridley with regards to the type of of Party liability contemplated by s66(2) CA1961
An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.
A male is wanting to burgle a commercial premises. He has visited the premises several times during opening hours to check out the alarm systems and entry points. Has the male committed the offence of attempt.
A Not committed an attempt because his actions amount to mere preparation.
B Committed an attempt because his intention is to commit a burglary and he has carried out an act to further that offence.
C Committed an attempt to commit burglary as his actions by visiting the address go beyond mere preparation and constitute an attempt
A Not committed an attempt because his actions amount to mere preparation.
In relation to being a party to an offence S66, CA1961 Offenders can also be charged as parties to any other offence (offence B) that any one of them commits in order to assist in the commission of the offence originally agreed to (offence A) R v Betts & Ridley provided an exception to this rule. What was held in this case?
A To be in a room and witness a Rape is not sufficient to render a person liable
B An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.
C A person guilty as a party if he is present at the scene of a crime and does nothing to prevent the actions of the other in any subsequent offences.
B An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.
The conspiratorial agreement requires the operation of both physical and mental faculties. What is the requisite actus reus for a charge of conspiracy.
A That the conspirators made some form of progression towards the completion of the offence however trivial. The acts or omissions need not be sufficiently proximate to the full offence
B That the conspirators carry out an act or omission relating to the illegal conduct on which the agreement is based.
C That there was an agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct
C That there was an agreement by two or more people to carry out the illegal conduct
When dealing with a case of attempt, S72(1) CA1961, the judge and jury have specific roles. Outline the functions of the Judge and Jury in these cases?
Function of the Judge
The judge must decide whether the accused had left the preparation stage and was already trying to effect completion of the full offence. The accused need not have taken all the steps necessary towards completing the full offence. If the Judge decides that the defendants actions were more than mere preparation the case goes to jury.
Function of the Jury
The Jury must decide whether the facts presented by the Crown have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and if so decide whether the defendants acts are close enough to the full offence.
If the Jury finds the actus reus has been established, it must also find the same in respect of the mens rea - that is the prosecutions evidence must also convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit the full offence.
Mens Rea goes to what was the offender thinking at the time the offence was committed. T or F
True
Explain your understanding of Actus Reus
Actus Reus is the offenders criminal conduct. Their actions, conduct and behaviour that constitute a persons criminal liability along with the requisite Mens Rea (intent)
generally who has to prove Actus Reus and Mens Rea
A Judge
B Defence
C Prosecution
D All of the Above
C Prosecution
Aside from actually committing the offence the five remaining actions for a person to become liable for the offence of parties under S66(1) are; Aids Abets Encourages Counsels Procures T or F
False Aids Abets Incites Counsels Procures
What was held in R v Crooks in relation to KNOWLEDGE (accessory after the fact)
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.
What is the case law in respect of when robbery is complete
A R v Lapier
B R v Maihi
C R v Taisalika
D R v Joyce
A R v Lapier
If the court is satisfied that a defendant acted with claim of right, he or she is entitled to an acquittal on a charge of theft. Acting with claim of right is therefore a defence to a charge of robbery.
Case Law
T or F
T
Yes, because theft is an ingredient of robbery, if theft cannot be proven, robbery cannot be proven.
R v Skivington
What does extortion mean with respect to a charge of robbery.
A To Obtain by coercion or intimidation
B To prevent resistance to the property being stolen
C To prevail over in a time of conflict
D To receive something when a request for it has been made
A To Obtain by coercion or intimidation
For a charge of Aggravated Robbery under S235(b) there must be proof that in committing the robbery the defendant was part of a joint enterprise by 2 or more people who were physically present at the robbery.
T or F
True
Mere presence during the commission of a robbery without active participation is not sufficient. the provision applies only to cases where the forces of 2 or more persons acting together are deployed against the victim in the actual commission of the offence.
The term being armed refers to the defendant carrying the item or has it available for immediate use as a weapon
T or F
True
Under R v Joyce it is sufficient for the crown to show that the presence by 2 or more people in the vicinity will satisfy the element “being together with”
T or F
False
The crown must establish that at least 2 persons were “Physically present” at the time the robbery was committed or assault occurred.
GBH can be defined as,
A Harm that is quite serious B Harm that is relatively serious C Harm that is moderately serious D Harm that is really serious Case Law
D Harm that is really serious
DPP v Smith - Bodily harm needs no explanation and grievous means no more and no less than really serious.
A threat made with the necessary intent may have a continuing effect that is still operating on the victims mind sometime later when the goods are eventually handed over.
Case Law
T or F
True
in R v Maihi it is implicit in accompany that there must eb a nexus (connection/link) between the act of stealing and a threat of violence. Both must be present, however the term does not require that the act of stealing and the threat of violence be contemporaneous.
R v Cox says there are 2 elements required to be satisfied in order to prove possession, they are
A Actual and potential
B Physical and Mental
C Taking and depriving the owner permanently
B Physical and Mental
Possession involves 2 elements. Physical and Mental
Under R v Galey mere presence during the commission of a robbery without active participation is not sufficient. It involves 2 or more persons having a common intention to use their combined force directly in the perpetration of the crime.
T or F
True