23 Mar 2023
Section 72 applies to attempts to possess a controlled drug for the purpose of supply where the defendant, with the requisite intent, does or omits acts sufficiently proximate to bring about possession; therefore attempted possession for supply is an offence under New Zealand law and R v Grant was wrongly decided.
30 Jun 2020
Because the admitted facts did not show entry into the storage container and the lock cover is not part of the building, the elements of burglary were not established; the facts did, however, support a conviction for attempted burglary and under s234(4) the Court substituted that conviction and reduced the sentence to 85 hours community work as proportionate to the substituted offence and its lower maximum penalty.
3 Aug 2018
The offender was a custodian/courier with limited culpability; starting point set at 5 years 6 months imprisonment, reduced by 7 months for mitigation and further reduced by 15 months (25%) for a guilty plea, producing a final sentence of 3 years 8 months imprisonment; no minimum period imposed.
1 Jul 2016
The Court held that (1) receipt of unopened envelopes addressed and recognisable as from the appellant constitutes "contact by correspondence" as a matter of law where sender is identifiable; (2) the trial directions on inferences were adequate; (3) placing mail into the prison mail system was a sufficiently proximate act to constitute attempts to breach the protection order; (4) the attempted threatening to kill conviction was sustainable and not duplicitous; and (5) the District Court's global sentence was manifestly excessive due to an excessive starting point and double counting, warranti…
20 Apr 2016
The Court held that movement of cash out of New Zealand is an element of the actus reus under s106 and, for accompanied cash, it is 'moved out of New Zealand' when the person takes the cash out of New Zealand; consequently an attempt to commit the offence is legally possible where the accused has taken sufficiently proximate steps, and the information charging attempt was not a nullity.
15 Oct 2015
Leave to appeal was granted and confined to the single question whether the trial judge was wrong to conclude the defendant's actions were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempted rape; the Court endorsed the approach that the judge must identify proximate acts and the jury must decide whether those acts were done with the intent to commit the offence, and found there was a rational basis on the evidence to infer intent.
17 Jun 2015
Section 129(2) is to be interpreted in context with s 128 and s 129(1): the mens rea for assault with intent to commit sexual violation requires the same objective component as for sexual violation itself — the accused must not believe on reasonable grounds that the complainant consents to the intended sexual intercourse. Proximity between the assault and the intended sexual intercourse limits over‑reach. On the facts the jury accepted the complainant's account and there was no evidential basis for any belief in consent, so the conviction was upheld.