New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2022

R v MOSES [2022] NZHC 2627

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2627
Court

High Court

The Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants knowingly joined and assisted a common unlawful purpose to discharge firearms at properties associated with a rival gang; they were parties under s66(1)(b) and s66(2) and therefore guilty of intentional damage at Otara Road, Capstick Road and Pearl Baker Drive and guilty of participation in an organised criminal group under s98A; insufficient evidence linked them to the Blampied Road aggravated burglary so acquitted on that charge.
16 Jun 2022

TELFORD v TELFORD [2022] NZHC 1412

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1412
Court

High Court

There was a shared common intention that Billy and Eileen would be the primary/majority owners and Jamie and Tessa secondary/minority owners by reason of the parties' circumstances and contributions; quantification based on proved contributions and reasonable valuation of labour yields plaintiffs 73% beneficial interest and defendants 27% beneficial interest; the $80,000 deposit was not a gift to defendants; the second loan is credited to defendants to the extent of actual repayments; relief is reserved for later determination.
15 Dec 2021

WHICHMAN v R [2021] NZHC 3463

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3463
Court

High Court

On the admitted facts the elements of aggravated robbery could reasonably be inferred: the pre-visit threatening text, the coordinated visit, the appellant's conduct (including displaying an imitation firearm and participating in intimidation) established a common intention/joint enterprise with the co-defendant to obtain money, so the appellant could have been convicted and no miscarriage of justice occurred; appeal dismissed.
25 Jun 2021

R v CHOURN [2021] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

Defendant was properly sentenced as a party under s66(2); starting point of 4.5 years for manslaughter was appropriate given planning, vigilante conduct, and death; apply 25% (1 year 2 months) guilty plea discount and 15% (8 months) mitigation for s27 factors producing 2 years 8 months, then reduce 8 months for totality to impose a cumulative two year sentence on the present charges to be served cumulatively on the District Court sentence of two years three months, yielding an effective total term of four years three months imprisonment.
22 Feb 2021

KREEGHER v R [2021] NZCA 22

Citation

(2021) 29 CRNZ 622
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to adduce fresh evidence was refused because the affidavits lacked freshness and credibility; the convictions were upheld because the circumstantial evidence, vehicle linkage, CCTV and complainant's descriptions provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury verdict and the judge's directions preserved the burden of proof; the sentence was reduced because a greater mitigation discount (for deprived upbringing/social deprivation and for time on bail) was properly available, producing a substituted sentence of seven years and seven months' imprisonment.
27 Nov 2003

NEVILLE SHAUN RICHARDSON V MARY ELIZABETH CASSIN CA CA24/03

Citation

openlaw-2862655a_005a_4c38_bc33_a63cc92a8a03.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

On the balance of probabilities the parties had an implicit common intention to share all assets equally and, applying Lankow v Rose, it would be unconscionable for the appellant to retain sole legal title to BEL; therefore respondent is entitled to a 50% share in BEL and related assets and no debt is owing by the respondent to the appellant.

New Zealand Case Law

R v MOSES [2022] NZHC 2627

TELFORD v TELFORD [2022] NZHC 1412

WHICHMAN v R [2021] NZHC 3463

R v CHOURN [2021] NZHC 1528

KREEGHER v R [2021] NZCA 22

NEVILLE SHAUN RICHARDSON V MARY ELIZABETH CASSIN CA CA24/03