Evolution Of The Offence Flashcards
(45 cards)
Meaning of ‘Men Rea’
Intention or knowledge of wrong doing that constitutes part of a crime. (guilty mind)
Meaning of ‘Actus Rens’
Commission of the guilty act
What is intent in a criminal law context?
1) Intention to commit the act
2) Intention to get a specific result
What is a deliberate act?
1) The act or omission must be done deliberately.
2) The act or omission must be more than involuntary or accidental.
Case law of ‘Cameron v R’ findings
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that:
(i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or
(ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed: and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
Cameron = “Did they see the risk AND decide to take it anyway?”
🧠 Cameron v R – “Cameron = Conscious Choice”
Hook: “Cameron made a clear choice.”
✅ Focus on the subjective mindset only:
Knew the risk and deliberately took it
Case law of ‘R V Tipple’ findings
Recklessness requires that the offender know of, or have a conscious appreciation of the relevant risk, and it may be said that it requires ‘a deliberate decision to run the risk’
Tipple = “Did they see the risk AND was it unreasonable to take it?”
🧠 R v Tipple – “Tipple = Two-Part Test”
Hook: “Tipple has a tip – two parts!”
✅ Think T for Two-part:
1️⃣ Knew the risk (subjective)
2️⃣ Unreasonable to take it (objective)
Subjective Recklessness
✅ Focuses on what the offender actually thought or knew.
The person was aware of the risk and chose to take it anyway.
It’s about their state of mind — did they foresee the danger?
🔑 Key Words: “knew the risk,” “consciously decided,” “actual awareness”
📚 Example: In Cameron v R, the court said recklessness means knowing the risk and deliberately running it.
Objective Recklessness
❌ Focuses on what a reasonable person would have thought or done.
Even if the offender didn’t realise the risk, a reasonable person would have, so they’re still reckless.
It’s about what should have been obvious, not what the person actually thought.
🔑 Key Words: “reasonable person,” “should have known,” “unreasonably risky”
📚 Example: In R v Tipple, the test included both subjective knowledge and objective unreasonableness.
What is Wilful Blindness?
🔑 Memory Hook:
“Close your eyes, and you’re still responsible.”
Or
“Don’t ask, don’t tell… doesn’t work in court!”
🕶️ Visual Mnemonic:
Imagine someone putting on sunglasses and saying:
“If I don’t see it, I can’t get in trouble!”
— But the law says: “Too bad — you knew enough.”
📚 Example:
A person accepts a bag from a stranger at the airport, suspecting it might contain drugs, but chooses not to check. That’s wilful blindness — they turned a blind eye to avoid knowing the truth.
Key Statutory Defences in the Crimes Act 1961:
- Infancy
- Defence of self or another
- defence of property
- Insanity
- Compulsion
what does the statutory defence infancy mean?
A child of a certain age cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions — this is based on the idea that young children don’t yet have the capacity to understand right from wrong in a criminal sense.
⚖️ Crimes Act 1961 – Section 21: Infancy
Here’s what the law says:
Under 10 years old:
❌ Cannot be convicted of an offence – they are completely exempt from criminal liability.
Aged 10 to 13 years:
✅ Can be charged, but only if the prosecution proves the child knew the act was seriously wrong, not just naughty or mischievous.
🧠 How to Remember It:
“Under 10, you’re in the clear.
10 to 13, you must know fear.”
Detail the statutory ‘Defence of Property’
allows a person to use reasonable force to protect their property from being unlawfully taken, damaged, or trespassed upon.
🔑 Memory Hook:
“Protect your stuff, but don’t get rough.”
Or imagine a gatekeeper standing firm at the gate — only pushing away those who try to sneak in, but not attacking anyone aggressively.
What is the statutory defence of compulsion ?
Compulsion (also called duress) is a defence where a person commits a crime because they were forced or threatened with serious harm, such as death or grievous bodily injury (GBH), and had no reasonable way to escape.
📜 Key Elements (Crimes Act 1961, s24):
There was a threat of death or serious injury.
The threat was immediate and present.
The threat came from a person physically present when the offence was committed.
The offender acted because of the threat, not voluntarily.
The response was reasonable and proportionate.
🧠 How to Remember Compulsion:
🔑 Memory Hook:
“Forced hands, no free plans.”
Or think of someone holding a gun to your head, forcing your hand — you have no choice but to comply.
What is the defence of impossibility? (COMMON LAW)
When it was impossible for the accused to commit the offence because the required circumstances did not exist.
What is the defence of necessity? (COMMON LAW)
Committing an offence to avoid a greater harm, where no legal alternative exists.
When is consent a valid defence? (COMMON LAW)
When the victim freely agrees to the conduct and the law allows consent to negate criminal liability.
How can intoxication be a defence? (COMMON LAW)
If the accused was so intoxicated that they lacked the intent required for the offence (usually only valid for specific intent crimes).
What does the defence of mistake mean? (COMMON LAW)
An honest and reasonable mistake of fact that negates the required intent for the offence.
What is sane automatism? (COMMON LAW)
Involuntary conduct caused by an external factor, meaning the accused was not in control of their actions.
How is conspiracy defined according to Mulcahy v R?
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal offence, with intention to achieve the unlawful purpose.
🧠 Memory Hook:
“Mulcahy’s Meeting = Criminal Agreement”
Think of Mulcahy as a group gathering where everyone agrees on a secret plan to commit a crime.
Two parts needs for conspiracy
- intent
- agreement
What did R v Sanders establish about conspiracy?
** Two aspects of case law to note **
1) Even if the conspirators don’t carry out the plan, the agreement alone to commit the offence is enough to establish conspiracy.
🧠 Memory Hook:
“Sanders Says — Plan Alone Sticks”
Remember: In Sanders, it’s the plan itself, not the result, that matters for conspiracy
2) It is sufficient if any act, omission, or event necessary to the completion of the offence occurs in New Zealand, even if the conspiracy was formed overseas.
🧠 Memory Hook:
“One NZ step = whole conspiracy caught 🇳🇿👣”
Even if the plan starts abroad, one act in NZ pulls it into NZ courts.
imagine the pan is to run someone over in nz … the moment the car is obtained for this plan that is enough.
.
What principle about conspiracy was confirmed in R v Gemmell?
A person can be guilty of conspiracy even if they don’t know all the details, as long as they intended to join the criminal agreement.
🧠 Memory Hook:
“Gemmell Joined the Game – Didn’t Need the Rules”
You don’t need to know the full plan, just that you’re in on it.
What did R v White clarify about conspiracy?
A person cannot conspire alone — conspiracy requires at least two genuine parties who intentionally agree to commit an offence. The suspect can be convicted even if the other parties are unknown.
🧠 Memory Hook:
“White can’t conspire alone — it takes two or more to plot 👤👤👤👤👤”
Imagine one person 👤 conspiring with other people who are blank white people and their identities are unknown. 👤👤👤👤👤👤👤👤
