small sections

Question 1

Donnelley - factual & legal impossibility (6)

Answer 1

Leckey - Judge to rule on questions of law, jury on questions of fact
1. D changes mind before committing proximate act (not liable)
2. D changes mind after committing proximate act (liable)
3. D is stopped by an outside agent (liable) (Barlows)
4. D fails through his own ineptitude, inefficiency and insufficient means (liable) (Barlows)
5. D finds it impossible to commit offence no matter means adopts (liable) (Police v Jay)
Nicholls
Legal impossibility - 6. Contrary to D’s belief, the conduct does not amount to an offence

Question 2

R v Richards HC outlined conspiracy requirements (4)

Answer 2

1. 2+ people form common intention (ad idem), Harris - persons can join/leave at various, even if initially naive
2. Intention outwardly expressed in form of agt
3. Course of conduct, if carried out, would be a crime (must be capable of filling offence elements, Lang,
   Sew Hoy - still conspiracy even if factually impossible
4. Assent of parties intended to be of real consequence in sense that it made ultimate commission of offence more likely

Question 3

Transferred Malice - Narayan v Police principles (5)

Answer 3

(a) application of force
(b) intentional
(c) insufficient if accident/negligent/reckless
(d) intentional action that misses intended V is still assault (doctrine of transferred malice) and
(e) application of force can be direct/indirect

Question 4

Threatening to apply force + causing V to believe on reasonable grounds that D will carry out threat (4)

Answer 4

1) did acts/gesture amount to threat (objective)
2) was there intent to threaten (subjective)
3) did D have ability to carry out threat (objective)
4) did V agree on reasonable grounds D could have carried out threat (subjective)

Question 5

MR for theft (3)?

Answer 5

1. Dishonesty (subjective test - does D believe they have express/implied consent?)
2. Without claim of right (belief that at the time you had a right to property), Brown, Skivington
   
   • claim of right can be a defence to robbery/aggravated robbery
3. Intention to deprive (intent to deal in property in such a manner that a) property cannot be returned in same condition or b) owner is likely to be deprived of property).
   
   • intent to temporarily deprive = not theft but intention to replace it may amount

Question 6

necessity Elements confirmed in Kapi HC (5)

Answer 6

1. Subjective belief formed on (objective) reasonable grounds
2. Imminent peril of death/serious injury
3. no realistic choice but to break the law
4. Breach of law must be proportionate to danger (objective)
   Coll - weight may be given to factors e.g. age, phone dead, people surrounding them are not safe
5. DOES NOT apply if threat is from another person
   Kawhiti - court may be lenient allowing injury necessities to lead to offence being committed, not threat from other person

Question 7

compulsion elements (4) (Raroa citing Tiechelman)

Answer 7

1. Threat of GBH/Death
   Maurire - nothing less than this will suffice
   Raroa - threat may be explicit/implicit but cannot just be generalised. must be actual threat, not mistaken belief and previous conduct is insufficient (objective)
2. Was threat made immediate if demand not met?
   Sowman - if person not there when crime is carried out, cannot be immediate
3. Threats need to come from a person who was present when offence is committed
   Neho - not present, cannot claim defence. And, there was other reasonable alternatives open than breaking the law
4. D must commit offence under belief that threat will be carried out (subjective)
   Maurire, Akulue

Question 8

Lindroos SD elements (3)

Answer 8

1. What circumstances did D believe themselves to be in? (Subjective)
   Simpson - intoxication can be taken into account when considering circumstances
2. For what purpose did D use force? (Subjective - must be to protect oneself or another from a present/future attack)
   Graves - force of SD has to be an operating course
   Howard - once threat is repelled, further use of force is not SD
3. Was force used reasonable in circumstances? (Objective

Question 9

Afamagaya v R - considerations for reasonableness (4)

Answer 9

(a) perceived imminence of attack/anticipated attack
Ranger - when threat is imminent, a lethal, pre-emptive strike may be justified
Wang - must be real & crystallised danger AND no other reasonable option

(b) seriousness of attack
King - if a very serious direct & immediate, may justify a less than considerate response - courts will not ‘weigh a nicety’ to reasonableness

(c) was reaction reasonable & proportionate to danger?
Consider lapse in time, possibility of aid, past experiences
Simpson - did D need to disable attacker to prevent future harm?

(d) was there alternative courses of action which D was aware?
Graves - if yes, unlikely to be reasonable
King - was D even able to consider other options?
Murray - use of weapon against unarmed person is usually unreasonable, but will be balanced if due to other factors. Consider:
- age
- strength & size
- relative fighting skills
- Lindroos - failure to show willingness to fight