Caselaw Flashcards
(42 cards)
Mulcahy v R (Conspires)
Mulcahy v R (1868)
“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in
itself ….”
R v Sanders- When a conspiracy ends
“A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The
conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in
existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or
abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are
discharged”.
R v White (one or more people)
Where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties (one or more people) whose identities are unknown, that suspect can still be convicted even if the identity of the other parties is never established and remains unknown.
R v Ring (Inferring intent from the act)
In this case the offender’s intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was empty. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also
satisfied.
R v Harpur [2010]
“[The Court may]” have regard to the conduct viewed cumulatively up to the point when the conduct in question stops … the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its entirety. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
Higgins v Police
Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Accordingly, it is possible to commit the offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis.
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
R v Donnelly (example of legally impossible act)
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
R v Pene (intention to help or encourage must exist)
A party must intentionally help or encourage - it is insufficient if they were reckless encourage as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged must exist.
R v Renata
The court held that where the principal offender cannot be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principal or a party in one of the ways contemplated by s66(1).
Larkins v Police (Actual proof of assistance is required)
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being required assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.
R v Russell
The court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender.
Ashton v Police (legal duty)
An example of a secondary party owing a legal duty to a third person or to the general public is a person teaching another person to drive. That person is, in New Zealand, under a legal duty to take reasonable precautions, because under s156 of the Crimes Act 1961 he is deemed to be in charge of a dangerous thing.
R v Betts and Ridley (common intention)
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.
R v Crooks
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.
R v Briggs (wilful blindness)
As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
R v Mane
To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.
Cullen v R (Possession for receiving)
There are four elements of possession for receiving:
(a) awareness that the item is where it is;
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen;
(c) actual or potential control of the item; and
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item.
R v Donnelly
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
R v Lucinsky
The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof), and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.
R v Kennedy
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In New Zealand it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happen, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of
risk.
Intention to help or encourage must exist
A party must intentionally help or encourage - it is insufficient if they were reckless as to whether the principal was assisted or encouraged.
R v Renata
The court held that where the principal offender cannot be identified, it is sufficient to prove that each individual accused must have been either the principal or a party in one of the ways contemplated by s66(1).
