Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

What is the case law Saxton v Police?

A

To import includes “to introduce from abroad or to cause to be brought in from a foreign country”

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

What is R v Hancox?

A

The bringing of goods into the country or causing them to be brought into the country does not cease as the aircraft or vessel enters NZ territorial limits. Importing in NZ for the purposes of 6(1)(a) MODA 75 is a process. The element of importing exists from the time the goods enter NZ until they reach their immediate destination….. ie when they have ceased to be under the control of the appropriate authorities and have become available to the consignee or addressee.

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

What is case law R v Strawbridge?

A

It is not necessary for the crown to establish knowledge on the part of the accused. In the absence of evidence to the contrary knowledge on her part will be presumed, but if there is some evidence that the accused honestly believed on reasonable grounds that her act was innocent, then she is entitled to be acquitted unless the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was not so.

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

What is the case law Police v Emirali?

A

The serious offence of…..possessing a narcotic does not extend to some minute and useless residue of the substance.
Note: Traces of controlled drugs may also provide circumstantial evidence of previous possession of larger quantities.

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

What is the case law R v Rua?

A

The words produce and manufacture in S6(1)(b) MODA 75 broadly cover the creation of controlled drugs by some form of process which changes the original substances into a particular controlled drug.

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

What is the case law R v Maginnis?

A

(Supply involves) more than the mere transfer of physical control, it includes enabling the recipient to apply the thing, to purposes for which he desires.

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

What is the case law R v During?

A

An offer is an imitation by the person charged to another that he is ready on request to supply to that other, drugs of a kind prohibited by statute.

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

What is case law R v Brown (Long)?

A

The defendant is guilty in the following instances:
1) Offers to supply a drug that he has on hand
2) Offers to supply a drug that will be procured at some future date
3) Offers to supply a drug that he mistakenly believes he can supply
4) Offers to supply a drug deceitfully, knowing he will not supply that drug

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

What is case law R v Brown (Short)?

A

The making of such an imitation, with the intention that is should be understood as a genuine offer, is an offence

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

What is Case law R v Forrest and Forrest?

A

The best evidence possible of the victims age in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of the victims ages

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

What is the Case law R v Cox?

A

Possession involved 2 elements. The fist, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: Knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession; and an intention to exercise possession.

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

What is the case law R v Collister

A

Circumstantial evidence from which an offenders intent may be inferred can include
- The offender action before, during and after the event
- The surrounding circumstances
- The nature of the act itself

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

What is the case law R v McGinty

A

The evidence in the present case of heroin dealing, in respect if which the orthodox techniques such as searching a premises and following vehicles had been tried without success, was sufficient. A judge was not required to refuse a warrant because the police had not exhausted every conceivable alternative technique of investigation

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