DOCSLIB.ORG

Benchbook – Table of Cases No 2.1 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benchbook – Table of Cases No 2.1 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction Table of Cases Case Name Number Direction A [2000] QCA 520 12 Competency of witnesses, including children Abbrederis – unreported (1981) High Court 202 Drugs: Commonwealth 8 October 1981 offences Abbrederis [1981] 1 NSWLR 530 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences Adams [1998] QCA 64 74 Parties to an offence: ss 7, 8 A-G v B [2001] QCA 169 7 Fitness for trial Ahern (1988) 165 CLR 87 72 Conspiracy 73 Evidence in conspiracy cases Alexander [1979] VR 615 24 Views and demonstrations Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404 186 Attempted murder Allie [1999] 1 Qd R 618 177 Stalking – offences between 23 November 1993 and 20 April 1999 Amore [1994] 1 WLR 547 51 Identification Andelman v The Queen (2013) 38 VR 659 5 Unrepresented Defendant Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576 183 Unlawful killing: murder s 302(1)(a) Ashbury v Reid [1961] WAR 49 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences Ashcroft (1989) 38 A Crim R 327 139 Going armed in public Ashley [2005] QCA 293 34 Separate consideration of charges – single defendant Ashton (1994) 61 WN (NSW) 134 24 Views and demonstrations ASIC v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (in liq) (2015) 75 Accessory after the Fact 235 FCR 181 ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd and Ors 75 Accessory after the Fact (No 9) (2016) 308 FLR 216 Aston – Brien [2000] QCA 211 43 Bad character Attorney- General’s Reference (No 2 of 93 Criminal negligence: s 289 1999) [2000] 3 WLR 195 Australian Trade Commission v Goodman 202 Drugs: Commonwealth Fielder Industries Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 517 offences Avetysan [2000] 2 SCR 745 26 Defendant giving evidence Aziz [1996] AC 41 36 Out-of-court confessional statements Azzopardi (2001) 205 CLR 50; 23 General summing up directions (2001) 75 ALJR 931 26 Defendant giving evidence 27 - 28 Defendant not giving evidence 31 The rule in Jones v Dunkel B (Unreported CA No 369 of 1997) 85 Capacity: s 29 Benchbook – Table of cases No 2.1 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction B (Unreported CA No 429 of 1998, 51 Identification delivered 13 April 1999) Bacon v Salamane (1965) 112 CLR 85 142 Imposition Bahri Kural (1987) 162 CLR 502 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences Baker v R (2012) 289 ALR 614 35 Separate consideration of charges – multiple defendants confronting multiple charges 37 Hearsay confessions exculpating the defendant Barbeler [1977] Qd R 80 186 Attempted murder Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 71 Parties to an offence: ss 7, 8 Barry [1984] 1 Qd R 74 82 Insanity Barton (1931) 25 QJPR 81 110 – 111 Bomb hoaxes Bartram [2013] QCA 361 88 Defence of dwelling house BBD [2007] 1 Qd R 478 93 Criminal negligence BCQ [2013] QCA 388 70 Evidence of other sexual or discreditable conduct of the defendant Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Beble [1979] Qd R 278 51 Identification 120 Abduction of child under 16 Bell [2004] QCA 219 5 Unrepresented defendant Bellino & Conte (1992) 59 A Crim R 322 4 Trial procedure 5 Unrepresented defendant Biess [1967] Qd R 470 100 Diminished responsibility: s 304 Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677 32 The rule in Browne v Dunn Black (1993) 179 CLR 44 37 Out-of-court confessional statements 54 Jury failure to agree Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183 94 Self-defence: s 271(1) 95 Self-defence: s 271(2) 96 Self-defence: s 272 Borland (1907) 10 GLR 241 112 Burglary: s 419 Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10 94 Self-defence: s 271(1) 140 Grievous bodily harm Box & Martin [2001] QCA 272 39 Lies told by defendant (consciousness of guilt) Boxshall [1956] QWN 45 24 Views and demonstrations Boyesen [1982] AC 768 118 Possessing child exploitation material 161 Possession of a child abuse computer game Bradley [2013] QCA 163 13 Hostile witnesses Benchbook – Table of cases No 2.2 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction Breene v Boyd, ex parte Boyd [1970] Qd R 77 Automatism: involuntariness 292 183 Unlawful killing: murder s 302(1)(a) Brennan [1999] 2 Qd R 529 39 Lies told by defendant (consciousness of guilt) Brien & Paterson [1999] 1 Qd R 634 74 Parties to an offence: ss 7, 8 Bromley (1986) 161 CLR 315 23 General summing up directions 63 Witnesses whose evidence may require a special warning Brooks (1999) 103 A Crim R 234 63 Witnesses whose evidence may require a special warning Brougham (1986) 43 SASR 187 112 Burglary 124 Circumstance of aggravation (robbery, assault, burglary) Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Brown (1985) 40 SASR 29 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 32 The rule in Browne v Dunn BRS (1997) 191 CLR 275 43 Bad character Bruce (1987) 74 ALR 219 171 Recent possession Bryant [1984] 2 Qd R 545 146 Indecent dealing with a child under 16 147 Indecent dealing with a person with an impairment of the mind Bulejcik (1996) 185 CLR 375 51 Identification Bull (1974) 1331 CLR 203 101 Drugs: s 233B Customs Act Burns (1975) 132 CLR 258 36 Out-of-court confessional statements Burns (1999) 107 A Crim R 330 32 The rule in Browne v Dunn Burns [2000] QCA 201 182 Torture Butera (1987) 164 CLR 180 20 Tape recordings, transcripts and exhibits Buttigieg (1993) 69 A Crim R 21 97 – 98 Provocation C [2002] QCA 166 69 Longman direction Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355 26 Defendant giving evidence Callaghan (1952) 87 CLR 115 183 Unlawful killing: murder s 302(1)(a) 184 Unlawful killing: murder s 302(1)(b) Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300 36 Out-of-court confessional statements Cameron v Holt (1980) 142 CLR 342 197 Commonwealth offences – mens rea and actus rea Campbell [1997] QCA 127 134 - 135 Extortion Benchbook – Table of cases No 2.3 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction Campbell v R [2008] NSWCCA 214 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 Cao v The Queen (2006) 198 FLR 200 ; 197 Proof of mental and physical [2006] NSWCCA 89 elements: Commonwealth offences 202 Drugs: Commonwealth offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 Carter & Savage, Ex Parte A- G [1990] 2 75 Accessory after the fact Qd R 371 Castiglione [1963] NSWR 1 74 Parties to an offence: ss 7, 8 CDR [1996] 1 Qd R 183 85 Capacity: s 29 CEV v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 10 23 General summing up directions Chai (2002) 76 ALJR 628 3 Introduction Chamberlain (1984) 153 CLR 521 51 Identification Chan [2001] 2 Qd R 662 33 Alternative charges 74 Parties to an offence: ss 7, 8 Chang (2003) 7 VR 236 39 Lies told by defendant (consciousness of guilt) Charlie (1999) 199 CLR 387 183 Unlawful killing: murder s 302(1)(a) Chester [1982] Qd R 252 58 Expert witnesses 100 Diminished responsibility: s 304 Chevathen & Dorrick (2001) 122 A Crim R 40 Lies told by defendant (going 441 only to credit) Chignell [1991] 2 NZLR 257 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671 4 Trial procedure Christophers (2000) 23 WAR 106 69 Longman direction Clare [1994] 2 Qd R 619 131 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 – DMA Clarke & Johnstone [1986] VR 643 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396 36 Out-of-court confessional statements Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312 51 Identification Collins v The Queen, ex parte A-G [1996] 1 4 Trial procedure Qd R 631 Conder, CA No 39 of 1999, 20 July 1999 41 Alibi Cooper v McKenna ex parte Cooper [1960] 77 Unwilled acts (automatism) Qd R 406 s 23(1)(a) Corcoran (2000) 111 A Crim R 126 94 – 95 Self-defence: s271(2); ss 272 & 273 Cormack [2013] QCA 342 104 Arson Courtney-Smith (No 2) (1990) 48 A Crim R 202 Drugs: Commonwealth 49 offences Benchbook – Table of cases No 2.4 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction Coyne [1996] 1 Qd R 512 29 Defendant’s right to silence Craikip (1880) 5 QBD 307 110 - 111 Bomb hoaxes Malicious acts with unlawful intent Cramp (1999) 110 A Crim R 198 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Crampton (2000) 206 CLR 161 23 General summing up directions 69 Longman direction Crawford [1997] 1 WLR 1329 43 Bad character Crowther v Sala [2007] QCA 133 197 Commonwealth offences – mens rea and actus rea Croxford v The Queen [2011] VSCA 433 74 Parties to an offence Cutter (1997) 71 ALJR 638; 143 ALR 498 29 Defendant’s right to silence 59 Intention 71 Attempts 186 Attempted murder Dally (2001) 115 A Crim R 582 53 Jury unanimity – specific issues Danahay [1993] 1 Qd R 271 127 Corruption of a witness Darch v Weight [1984] 1 WLR 659 133 Escape from lawful custody Darkan v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 1250 74 Parties to an offence Davies & Cody (1937) 57 CLR 170 51 Identification DBG [2013] QCA 370 90 Domestic discipline De Gruchy v R (2002) 190 ALR 441 49 Motive 59 Intent De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 112 Burglary: s 419 124 Circumstance of aggravation (robbery, assault, burglary) 174 Robbery De Voss [1995] QCA 518 58 Expert witnesses Dellit v Small [1978] Qd R 303 108 Assault on a police officer in execution of his duty: s 340 Delon (1992) 29 NSWLR 29 24 Views and demonstrations Denver v Cosgrove [1972] 3 SASR 130 24 Views and demonstrations Derbas (1993) 66 A Crim R 327 36 Out-of-court confessional statements Dhanhoa v R (2003) 217 CLR 1 39 Lies told by defendant (consciousness of guilt) 40 Lies told by defendant (going only to credit) Dick [1966] Qd R 301 58 Expert witnesses 82 Insanity 100 Diminished responsibility: s 304 Doan (2001) 3 VR 349 33 Alternative Charges Benchbook – Table of cases No 2.5 March 2019 Amendments Case Name Number Direction Doggett (2009) 208 CLR 343 34 Separate consideration of the 69 charges – single defendant Longman direction Doheny and Adams [1997] 1 Cr App R 369 56 DNA Doklu v R (2010) 208 A Crim R 333 23 General summing up directions 54 Jury failure to agree 55 Majority verdict Domican (1992) 173 CLR 555 51 Identification Donnini (1972) 128 CLR 114 42 Bad character Donnini [1973] VR 67 51 Identification Donovan [1990]
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Omissions and Criminal Liability
    OMISSIONS AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY J. PAUL McCUTCHEON INTRODUCTION The question of liability for omissions raises issues of profound significance for the criminal law. While discussion thereof might be predominently theoretical - in practice prosecutors are likely to encounter few omissions cases - it is nevertheless impOltant as it embraces consideration of the proper scope of the criminal law, its function in the prevention of harm and the en­ couragement of socially beneficial conduct and the practical effectiveness and limits of the criminal sanction. Although it has not been seriously considered by Irish courts the issue has attracted the attention of courts and jurists in other jurisdictions. I The Anglo-American tradition is one ofreluctance to penalise omissions; to draw on the time honoured example no offence is committed by the able-bodied adult who watches an infant drown in a shallow pool. That gruesome hypothetical is happily improbable, but the general proposition is substantiated by the much-cited decision in People v. BeardsleyZ where it was held that the accused was not criminally answerable for the death from drug use of his 'weekend mistress' in circumstances where he failed to take the necessary, and not unduly onerous, steps to save her life. Likewise, the law does not impose a general duty to rescue those who are in peril nor is there a duty to warn a person of impending danger.3 A passive bystander or witness is not answerable for his failure to act, even where the harm caused is the result of criminal conduct.4 This general reluctance is evident in the manner in which criminal offences are defined.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Law.Adelaide.Edu.Au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD
    Volume 40, Number 3 THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW law.adelaide.edu.au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD The Honourable Professor Catherine Branson AC QC Deputy Chancellor, The University of Adelaide; Former President, Australian Human Rights Commission; Former Justice, Federal Court of Australia Emeritus Professor William R Cornish CMG QC Emeritus Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Cambridge His Excellency Judge James R Crawford AC SC International Court of Justice The Honourable Professor John J Doyle AC QC Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South Australia Professor John V Orth William Rand Kenan Jr Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Emerita Rosemary J Owens AO Former Dean, Adelaide Law School The Honourable Justice Melissa Perry Federal Court of Australia The Honourable Margaret White AO Former Justice, Supreme Court of Queensland Professor John M Williams Dame Roma Mitchell Chair of Law and Former Dean, Adelaide Law School ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Editors Associate Professor Matthew Stubbs and Dr Michelle Lim Book Review and Comment Editor Dr Stacey Henderson Associate Editors Kyriaco Nikias and Azaara Perakath Student Editors Joshua Aikens Christian Andreotti Mitchell Brunker Peter Dalrymple Henry Materne-Smith Holly Nicholls Clare Nolan Eleanor Nolan Vincent Rocca India Short Christine Vu Kate Walsh Noel Williams Publications Officer Panita Hirunboot Volume 40 Issue 3 2019 The Adelaide Law Review is a double-blind peer reviewed journal that is published twice a year by the Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide. A guide for the submission of manuscripts is set out at the back of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Duty to Rescue Through the Lens of Multiple-Party Sexual Assault
    Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies Volume 9 Article 1 1-1-2000 Duty to Rescue Through the Lens of Multiple-Party Sexual Assault Renu Mandhane Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/djls This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Recommended Citation Renu Mandhane, "Duty to Rescue Through the Lens of Multiple-Party Sexual Assault" (2000) 9 Dal J Leg Stud 1. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DUTY TO RESCUE ... I DUTY TO RESCUE THROUGH THE LENS OF MULTIPLE-PARTY SEXUAL ASSAULT RENU MANDHANEt In 1983, a woman in a Massachusetts bar was hoisted onto a pool table and sexually assaulted by several men for over an hour. Patrons of the bar did not offer assistance to the woman. Many people simply watched as she was degraded while others yelled encouragement to the people assaulting her. 1 While incidents of multiple-party sexual assault (or "gang rape") are shocking, they are not anomalous. Essentially, multiple-party sexual assault is an extreme manifestation of the widespread gender-specific violence that appears to be overlooked and perpetuated in our society. For example, statistics suggest that thirty- nine percent of women in Canada experience some fonn of sexual assault during their lifetime, while only six percent of sexual assaults are ever reported to the police.2 Indeed, gender-specific violence is a harsh reality in Canadian society.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Canada Cases Written by Justice Bertha Wilson 1982-1991 Marie-Claire Belleau
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 41 (2008) Article 16 Appendix A: Supreme Court of Canada Cases Written by Justice Bertha Wilson 1982-1991 Marie-Claire Belleau Rebecca Johnson Christina Vinters Andrew Tomilso Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Belleau, Marie-Claire; Johnson, Rebecca; Vinters, Christina; and Tomilso, Andrew. "Appendix A: Supreme Court of Canada Cases Written by Justice Bertha Wilson 1982-1991." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 41. (2008). https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol41/iss1/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Appendix A: Supreme Court of Canada Cases Written by Justice Bertha Wilson 1982-1991 Marie-Claire Belleau, Rebecca Johnson, Christina Vinters, Andrew Tomilson∗ Case Opinions Panel Type of Topic Judges Opinion 1982 Shell Oil Co. v. Canada 1 5 Unanimous Patents; Statutory (Commissioner of Patents), Interpretation; [1982] 2 S.C.R. 536 Scope of “Newness” Required for Patents Atco Ltd. v. Calgary Power 2 7 Dissent Shareholders; Ltd., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 557 Corporation; Ownership of Company Assets; Ownership vs. Control of Company; Takeover Bids Smallwood v. Sparling, 1 5 Unanimous Crown Privilege; [1982] 2 S.C.R. 686 Common Law vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure September 6, 2007
    LAW 520 CRIM PRO PENNEY 1 I. CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE A) THEORIES 1. PACKER’S MODEL CRIME CONTROL Trust in discretion of police and prosecutors - A high speed “assembly-line conveyor belt” operated by police/prosecutors - Goal is efficiency, concerned w/ the truth not accused rights, ends in guilty plea - Broad police powers “writs of assistance” to search and e w/o warrant - Reluctance to exclude corroborating evidence even if unfairly obtained - Court favored social interest in repression of crime, before the Charter ***Want to ensure police don’t abuse powers, but to be done outside of criminal process (civil lawsuits) don’t want to reward criminals b/c police screw up*** - 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights (CBR): Miranda decision accused rights in minimal fashion No exclusionary rule Factual guilt is only concern, don‟t allow offenders to contact lawyer before interrogation Minimize trials Risk of wrongful convictions an “unreal dream” Criminal Justice Process in the USA until 1950s Not necessarily a harsh or punitive model 2. DUE PROCESS Skepticism Fairness is key, means matter more than ends Robust exclusionary rule, legal guilt is only concern Trials, not guilty pleas preferred Risk of wrongful convictions real Fair procedures only antidote - An “obstacle course” defence lawyers argue before judges about client‟s rights - Fairness to accused (in court and pre-trial process) and “quality control” – Charter - Procedural rights given to accused- ensure lawful conduct of police - In 1980s, rights
    [Show full text]
  • Dumb and Dumber: Reckless Encouragement 649
    D UMB AND DUMBER: RECKLESS ENCOURAGEMENT TO RECKLESS WRONGDOERS Daniel G. Moriarty* This paper discusses compound recklessness, i.e. situations in which one person’s heedlessness helps another to commit a reckless offense. The conviction of the second party, who actually commits the offense, poses no unique problem. Offenses committable through various forms of criminal negligence and recklessness, such as involuntary manslaughter, are routinely available in every jurisdiction. But conviction of the first party who recklessly provided the means or opportunity for the second party’s acts poses significant problems. Part I of this paper looks at several cases which present illustrations of the kind of situations encountered. In Part II, the paper considers some of the complications involved in reaching an appropriate resolution of this dilemma. Part II A considers complicity as a possible solution but concludes it is unavailable as it requires an intention to aid another, which is absent in cases of recklessness and negligence. Part II B considers whether principles of causation might be utilized, but concludes they, too, are unsuitable. The second party’s criminally reckless or negligent activity is apt to be considered an intervening, superseding cause, leaving the first party free of any criminal liability for harms caused by the final actor. Part II C considers the relatively new offense of Reckless Endangerment, an offense pioneered by the Model Penal Code which could, unlike complicity or causation, provide a means to criminally sanction the initially reckless individual who aids another in committing a reckless offense. Reckless endangerment is ultimately unsuitable, however, for while it may well be available in most states (sixty percent), it is by no means available in all, and where it is available is generally graded as a misdemeanor only, with a maximum imposable prison term of about a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplification of Jury Directions Project Report
    SIMPLIFICATION OF JURY DIRECTIONS PROJECT A REPORT TO THE JURY DIRECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AUGUST 2012 COMPLICITY INFERENCES AND CIRCUMSTANIAL EVIDENCE OTHER MISCONDUCT EVIDENCE JURY WARNINGS/UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE SIMPLIFICATION OF JURY DIRECTIONS PROJECT A REPORT TO THE JURY DIRECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP AUGUST 2012 PREFACE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi-x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR SIMPLIFICATION Background 1 Approach and Method 6 Scope of the Problem: Research into the Intelligibility of Jury Directions 7 CHAPTER 2: COMPLICITY Overview 17 The Current Law and Its Critics 18 The Need for Statutory Reform 25 A. Historical background 26 B. The derivative basis of complicity 28 C. Likiardopoulos v The Queen 30 D. Should liability in complicity be primary and not derivative? 32 The Basic Forms of Complicity 35 A. Assisting and Encouraging 35 B. Group Activity 38 C. The Charge Book approach 38 D. Problems of nomenclature 40 E. The Position in England: Secondary Parties 42 Codifying the Law of Complicity 44 Some Specific Conceptual Difficulties 45 A. The Fault Element 45 B. The Commonwealth Criminal Code 49 C. Recklessness and divergence 54 D. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission Report on Complicity 58 Miscellaneous Problems 65 A. Aiding and Abetting – Protection of the Victim 65 B. Joint Principals - Offending outside the Scope of Accessorial Liability 65 C. Innocent Agency 66 Acting in Concert – The Victorian Approach 66 A. Lowery and King 66 B. Osland v The Queen 67 Extended Common Purpose 70 A. Johns v The Queen 71 B. McAuliffe v The Queen 72 C. Gillard v The Queen 74 D. Criticisms of the doctrine 74 Confusion and Misunderstanding 78 Simplification of Jury Directions – Is Legislative Reform Required? 80 i Exceptions to Complicity 86 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptualizing Inchoate Complicity: the Normative and Doctrinal Case for Lesser Offenses As an Alternative to Complicity Liability
    Document1 (Do Not Delete) 5/10/2016 8:15 PM CONCEPTUALIZING INCHOATE COMPLICITY: THE NORMATIVE AND DOCTRINAL CASE FOR LESSER OFFENSES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMPLICITY LIABILITY DENNIS J. BAKER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 504 II. HISTORY AND DOCTRINE .............................................................. 509 III. THE LETTER OF THE LAW UNDER THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .......................................................................................................... 514 IV. RECKLESSLY ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING SEVERAL AND ALTERNATIVE CRIMES ........................................................................ 532 V. ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING AN INNOCENT AGENT .................................................................................................................. 537 VI. CAUSATION, ACT CAPABLENESS, AND IMPOSSIBILITY ....... 540 VII. IMPOSSIBILITY AND CAPABILITY ............................................ 552 VIII. WHEN IS TRIVIAL ENCOURAGEMENT CAPABLE OF ENCOURAGING? ................................................................................... 557 IX. ATTEMPTS TO ATTEMPT AND THE SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 .................................................................................................................. 566 X. REMOTE ENCOURAGEMENT ........................................................ 575 XI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 586 * (M.Phil., Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Attempts 46 Chapter 7— Conspiracy 49 Chapter 8— Joint Enterprise 55 1
    II CRIMINAL BENCH BOOK © Judicial Education Institute of Trinidad and Tobago, 2015 All rights reserved. Except for use in review, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me- chanical, including photocopy, recording, any information storage or retrieval system, or on the internet, without permission in writing from the publishers. Design and Artwork: Paria Publishing Company Limited Typeset in Scala Printed by The Office Authority ISBN 978-976-8255-20-4 (printed book) ISBN 978-976-8255-21-1 (e-book) 2015 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CRIMINAL BENCH BOOK III THE BOARD OF THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2015) The Honourable The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ivor Archie, ORTT— President The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Jamadar, JA— Chairman Justice Roger Hamel-Smith (Ret.)— Programme Director The Honourable Mme Justice Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, JA The Honourable Mme Justice Charmaine Pemberton The Honourable Mme Justice Carla Brown-Antoine The Honourable Mme Justice Andrea Smart Chief Magistrate Her Worship Mrs Marcia Ayers-Caesar Her Worship Magistrate Ms Avason Quinlan Ms Jade Rodriguez— Registrar of the High Court Ms Michelle Austin— Court Executive Administrator Ms Carol Ford-Nunes— Director of Court Library Services Mr Kent Jardine— Judicial Educator Mrs Samantha Forde— Coordinator, JEITT THE BENCH BOOK COMMITTEE The Honourable Mme Justice Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, JA— Chairperson The Honourable Mr Justice Mark Mohammed, JA— Co-Chairperson Ms
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Enterprise Charging Decisions Principal, Secondary and Inchoate Liability
    RESTRICTED Joint Enterprise charging decisions Principal, secondary and inchoate liability Contents Introduction Concerns The doctrine of joint enterprise Transferred malice Qualifications on the scope of joint enterprise Fundamentally different act Withdrawal Prosecuting offences on the basis of joint enterprise The evidential stage applied to joint enterprise cases Participation Presence at the scene of an offence as evidence of participation Association with P or a group or gang as evidence of participation The public interest stage applied to joint enterprise cases Selecting charges: principal, secondary and inchoate liability Charging group assaults Charging murder or manslaughter in group assaults without a weapon Serious Crime Act 2007 offences charged as inchoate offences Charging common law offences or Serious Crime Act 2007 offences Charging an offence under s46 Serious Crime Act 2007 Introduction 1. This guidance sets out how charging decisions are to be approached in cases involving joint enterprise. In particular, it addresses: Application of the Full Code Test to cases involving joint enterprise. The use of evidence of presence and association in proving participation in a joint enterprise. The principles to be applied when selecting charges that involve principal, secondary and inchoate liability. The approach to charging group assaults, including cases of murder and manslaughter. Charging offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Concerns 2. Concerns about the application of the doctrine of joint enterprise resulted in a House of Commons Justice Committee inquiry in 2011-12. The Committee published its report in January 2012, which recommended that the DPP issue guidance on the use of the doctrine when charging, including the relationship between association and complicity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to a Fair Fight: Sporting Lessons on Consensual Harm
    The Right to a Fair Fight: Sporting Lessons on Consensual Harm Anderson, J. (2014). The Right to a Fair Fight: Sporting Lessons on Consensual Harm. New Criminal Law Review, 17(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.1.55 Published in: New Criminal Law Review Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Published as Anderson, J 2014, 'The Right to a Fair Fight: Sporting Lessons on Consensual Harm' New Criminal Law Review, vol 17, no. 1, pp. 55-75.. © 2016 by [the Regents of the University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association]. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by [the Regents of the University of California/on behalf of the Sponsoring Society] for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Enterprise Criminal Liability
    Rechtspolitisches Forum Legal Policy Forum 55 Janice Brabyn Secondary Party Criminal Liability in Hong Kong Institut für Rechtspolitik an der Universität Trier IRP Das Institut für Rechtspolitik an der Universität Trier hat die wissenschaftliche Forschung und Beratung auf Gebieten der Rechtspolitik sowie die systematische Erfassung wesentlicher rechtspolitischer Themen im In- und Ausland zur Aufgabe. Es wurde im Januar 2000 gegründet. Das Rechtspolitische Forum veröffentlicht Ansätze und Ergebnis- se national wie international orientierter rechtspolitischer For- schung und mag als Quelle für weitere Anregungen und Entwick- lungen auf diesem Gebiet dienen. Die in den Beiträgen enthalte- nen Darstellungen und Ansichten sind solche des Verfassers und entsprechen nicht notwendig Ansichten des Instituts für Rechts- politik. In a case of robbery, some people actually use violence to steal - but others may supply information or weapons, make the plans, act as lookouts, provide transport. Certainly the actual robbers are guilty - but what of the others? How does Hong Kong's version of the common law answer this question now? How should the question be answered in the future? Associate Professor Janice Brabyn was born in 1956 in New Zeal- and, was married 1980, has two children and has been a fulltime lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Hong Kong since 1986. She has an LLB (Hons) First Class from Victoria Uni- versity of Wellington (VUW) and Masters in Law from VUW and Yale University. Her areas of publication include international co- operation in criminal cases, criminal law, the law of evidence and related fields of public law. Recent publications of interest include “Protection Against Judicially Compelled Disclosure of the Identity of News Gathers' Confidential Sources in Common Law Jurisdic- tions” (2006) 69(6) Modern Law Review 895-934.
    [Show full text]