New Zealand Law/Criminal/Mistake
Definition
editWhere no intention, knowledge or recklessness exists due to mistake (even if the mistake is not reasonable).
Cases
editR v Wood
edit- Facts
- D cultivated pot, claimed she thought they were tomatoes.
- Judged directed jury to use their own knowledge of how cannibus and tomatoes grown.
- Held
- Misdirection – no evidence on matter, jury not entitled to take notice.
- Following DPP v Morgan, honest belief need not be reasonable.
R v Metuariki
edit- Facts
- Defendant picked wild mushrooms, sold to undercover police officer, charged with supply of class A controlled drug.
- Defendant knew mushrooms made you high, didn’t know contained class A drug, or illegal.
- Held
- To establish prima facie case, crown must prove defendant (i) supplied mushrooms (ii) mushrooms were a controlled drug.
- Knowledge would be presumed unless defendant introduce evidence that he honestly believed his actions were innocent.
- Ignorance of the law is no defence.
- For example, it is not a defence to claim that a person thought he was supplying a different controlled drug.
- Accused knew mushrooms had hallucinatory effects but they were growing in a public place. There was no evidence that he thought they were anything other than innocent vegetation.
- Accused entitled to acquittal unless jury convinced otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.