STRICT LIABILITY - MILLER APPRCH

Question 1

Millar v Ministry of Transport facts

Answer 1

Millar was charged with driving with a disqualified license.

He believed the disqualification had ended due to a misunderstanding with the judge.

Question 2

Millar v Ministry of Transport issue

Answer 2

The District Court and High Court ruled it as strict liability and said he didn’t prove a lack of fault, so he appealed to the Court of Appeal on mens rea grounds.

Question 3

Millar v Ministry of Transport held

Answer 3

Millar essentially gives a seven-fold classification of offences which was reduced to the 3 classes as given in Mackenzie system.

Millar clears up any confusion of the classes and gives a step by step approach on how to determine what type of offence you have.

Question 4

Cameron v R facts

Answer 4

• The defendant and others were found guilty of importing, selling, having possession for sale the class C drug MDA (valued at $36 million).

Question 5

Cameron v R main points

Answer 5

fourth Class Established: Class Strawbridge.

Mackenzie and Millar were made before the NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA).

BORA guarantees that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Imposing a legal burden in Class 2 may undermine the presumption of innocence.

Cameron’s Approach: May lead to replacing strict liability with the Strawbridge standard for consistency with BORA and Woolmington.

Question 6

what is step 1 of the Millar approach

Answer 6

is there a clear legislative intent as to which is the three classes the offence belongs to

if no move to step 2

Question 7

what is step 2 of the Millar approach

Answer 7

is there an overriding judicial history that assigns the offence to one of the there classes

if no

PRESUME ThE OFFENCE IS IN CLASS 1

Question 8

WHAT IS THE Presumption if THE OFFENCE IS IN CLASS ONE

Answer 8

there is no legislative intent and there is no overriding judicial history

Question 9

what is step 3 of the miller approach

Answer 9

can the presumption be displaced
- anything weight to do so
- if two, can b displaced

if yes go to step 4

Question 10

what is step 4 of Millar approach

Answer 10

if presumption displaced usually CLASS 2 or 3

usually if get this far answer will be CLASS 2

Question 11

what are guidelines to step 4

Answer 11

• if either are reasonable interpretations, adopt to favourable which is CLASS 2
• pwo are prima facie in CLASS 2
• CLASS 3 are rare
• if penalty is severe, shld b CLASS 2

Question 12

step 5 of Millar approach

Answer 12

since it is class 2, what are the available defences that the accused can use to attempted to prove absence of fault on balance of probabilities

Question 13

explain what are class 1 offences

Answer 13

MR offences

regular criminal offences requiring AR and MR.

Question 14

what are three types of mr

Answer 14

implied
expressed
presumed

Question 15

expressed mr

Answer 15

○ Parliament through its clear statutory language expressing MR is required.

Question 16

implied mr

Answer 16

Generally have to rely on common law (what courts have said)

Question 17

what is a tip for the exam regarding step 2 and implied mr

Answer 17

○ Step 2 isn’t normally going to be contentious because not expected to know any precedent that not given in CM - normally just say no but in real world would require research.

Question 18

what are examples of implied mr

Answer 18

Refusal: Unintentional refusal is unclear.

Publish/Broadcast: Intentional act; it’s unlikely to publish someone as a spy inadvertently (possibly involves an editor).

Possession of Material: In drug cases, possession implies awareness of what you have.

Allows or Permits: Refer to Turner v South Taranaki District Council.

Question 19

Presumed MR

Answer 19

Nothing weighty enough to displace the presumption that it is not a regular MR offence (Step 3) then it is presumed to be class 1 MR offence.

Weighty enough” = if the offence is a PWO then the presumption may be displaced.

Question 20

Turner v South Taranaki District Council
facts

Answer 20

Dog bit and wounded a passing pedestrian. Owner charged with being an owner of a dog that attacked a person and with “allowing” the dog in public unmuzzled.

Question 21

Turner v South Taranaki District Council issue

Answer 21

is MR implied by the statutory language “allowed”?

Question 22

Turner v South Taranaki District Council held

Answer 22

yes mr is implied, The word “allow” normally connotes actual knowledge of what is being allowed.

“Allow” in a regulatory setting is an implied MR of knowledge.

Question 23

Police v Lindsay facts

Answer 23

Defendant was charged with 6 breaches of non-molestation order.

Question 24

Police v Lindsay issue

Answer 24

Can MR be presumed from this offence?

Question 25

Police v Lindsay

Answer 25

yes mr presumed Drew parallels to Millar: both defendants ignored legal restrictions (license disqualification and court order). In Millar, the AR required MR; similarly, it applies here. Offences that protect private interests and court authority allow for presumed MR.

Question 26

Police v TVNZ Ltd facts

Answer 26

TVNZ charged for publishing details of a defendant which was a breach of a name suppression order

Question 27

Police v TVNZ Ltd issue

Answer 27

What type of offence is this?

Question 28

Police v TVNZ Ltd held

Answer 28

Class #2 Strict Liability (CONTROVERSIAL) this was possibly the wrong decision should have been a class #1 presumed MR offence case is prove that presumed MR is not always clear cut.

Question 29

what is class 2 offences

Answer 29

Strict Liability (PWO Offences) Renewal of the onus, burden on the accused to proved there was no mens rea on the balance of probabilities

Question 30

how do you identify a PWO

Answer 30

- not usually found in crimes act - is a regulation - is a matter of public welfare worker safety, environmental protection, resource management,

Question 31

what about tikanga relation to pwo

Answer 31

tikanga is in the public welfare so a tikanga argument could be used when dealing with the natural environment.

Question 32

tell v maritime safety facts

Answer 32

Mr. Tell fell asleep at the wheel of his fishing boat. He was charged on the basis that he continued to operate a vessel with "knowledge" that he was likely to fall asleep as per s65(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Question 33

tell v maritime safety issue

Answer 33

What type of offence is this?

Question 34

tell v maritime safety held

Answer 34

Operating a vessel in a dangerous manner is a Class 2 strict liability offence. The legislative purpose is to ensure public safety by sanctioning those who unnecessarily endanger people or property.

Question 35

Jackson v Attorney-General facts

Answer 35

Jackson, a prisoner, was charged under section 32(1)(g) of the Penal Institutions Act 1954 after cannabis was discovered in a magazine during a cell search. He claimed he was unaware that the magazine contained cannabis.

Question 36

Jackson v Attorney-General issue

Answer 36

what type of offence was this?

Question 37

Jackson v Attorney-General held

Answer 37

Class 2 Strict Liability Prison discipline offenses under the Penal Institutions Act 1954 are public welfare offenses (PWOs) because a well-managed prison is crucial for public safety and social order, helping to deter bad behavior.

Question 38

Stevenson v R facts

Answer 38

S pleaded guilty to two charges of attempting to enter into arrangement with a person under 18 to provide commercial sexual services.

Question 39

Stevenson v R issue

Answer 39

What type of offence is this?

Question 40

Stevenson v R held

Answer 40

Class 2 Strict Liability Court found clear legislative intent that engaging in an act of prostitution under the age of 18 is a PWO because it is a matter of public safety.

Question 41

what is class number 3

Answer 41

Absolute Liability

Question 42

explain absolute liability offences

Answer 42

* Absolute liability offences mean that MR is completely irrelevant

Question 43

describe class 2 offences

Answer 43

Renewal of the onus, burden on the accused to proved there was no mens rea on the balance of probabilities

Question 44

The majority of the time you'll settle on class 3 is when

Answer 44

at STEP 2 where there is overriding judicial history (precedent): Most decisions were made before the Millar General Approach in 1986. If the Millar approach had been applied, some offenses might have been classified as strict liability.

Question 45

AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour facts

Answer 45

An employee was seriously injured while operating a machine owned by the defendant. The employee had removed the guard of the dangerous machine on an earlier occasion, and he had been warned not to.

Question 46

AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour issue

Answer 46

The issue is whether absolute liability can be assigned when the employee deliberately acted against a warning in this case.

Question 47

AHI Operations Ltd v Department of Labour held

Answer 47

An employer failing to ensure that a dangerous part of industrial machinery is fenced is an absolute liability offence. Although recognized as a PWO, was placed in class 3 due to clear legislative intent and overriding judicial history.

Question 48

IRD v Thomas facts

Answer 48

The respondent was not capable of completing her own tax return and she had relied on her accountant to do so for the last 20 years. The return was not completed on time.

Question 49

IRD v Thomas held

Answer 49

yes absolute liability offence failing to furnish a tax return when required is an absolute liability offence. class 2 offence it would be absurd by allowing tax payers to avoid punishment and essentially gain extension if they could prove it was by fault of the accountant. This lead to the clear legislative intent of s 143 of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

Question 49

IRD v Thomas issue

Answer 49

Is this an absolute liability offence?

Question 50

Barrow v Van Den Beld facts

Answer 50

Charged for the importation of indecent films into NZ

Question 51

Barrow v Van Den Beld issue

Answer 51

Is this an absolute liability offence?

Question 52

Barrow v Van Den Beld held

Answer 52

yes absolute liability offence, importation restriction cases are absolute liability cases. Based on overriding judicial history of Fraser v Beckett

Question 53

Boyes v NZ Customs facts

Answer 53

Charged for the importation of two instruction manuals for the manufacturing of illicit drugs.

Question 54

Boyes v NZ Customs issue

Answer 54

Is this an absolute liability offence?

Question 55

Boyes v NZ Customs held

Answer 55

yes absolute liability offence, importation restriction cases are absolute liability cases Based on overriding judicial history of Fraser v Beckett

Question 56

what did the case of boyes v nz customs question

Answer 56

The case questioned if knowledge of the goods' nature implied knowledge of their prohibition. It ruled that knowing one means knowing the other, aligning with the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Question 57

New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International Ltd facts

Answer 57

DHL removed packages from customers controlled area prior to being cleared

Question 58

New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International Ltd issue

Answer 58

Is this an absolute liability offence?

Question 59

New Zealand Customs Service v DHL International Ltd facts

Answer 59

Not AL, Removing goods from a customs controlled area is a class 2 strict liability offence. The case also clarified that in vicarious liability, it must be proven that the company did not direct or approve the employee's actions, which is difficult if the offense occurred within the employee's work scope.

Question 60

King v South Waikato District Council facts

Answer 60

King is charged for being the owner of a dog that attacks. Two attacks occurred (1) to a neighbors rabbit and (2) to another dog whilst in the pound.

Question 61

King v South Waikato District Council issue

Answer 61

Is this an absolute liability offence?

Question 62

King v South Waikato District Council held

Answer 62

not absolute liability, Being the owner of a dog that attacks is a strict liability offence. When a dog attacks, it’s not clear that the owner is responsible if the dog is out of control. Here, the second attack happened while the dog was at the pound, so the owner had no control. This should be a strict liability case, allowing a defense for the defendant.

Question 63

step 4 reason 1 Universal principle of beneficial interpretation (Sweet v Parsley)

Answer 63

If both interpretations are reasonable, we should choose the one favoring the accused, which would be class 2, as it allows for a defense.

Question 63

step 4 reason 2 Mackenzie states that PWO offences are presumed to be in class 2 is displaced when

Answer 63

this presumption is displaced only if it is clear that absolute liability was intended (this should have been picked up at step 1).

Question 64

step 4 reason 4 If the maximum possible penalty is severe the offence should not be in class 3.

Answer 64

We do not want to give a severe punishment without giving chance to prove a defence.

Question 65

fines and infringement fees

Answer 65

when they are applicable they are essential when deciphering if class 2 or 3 as class 2 requires a harsh maximum punishment but can also not effect the class