New Zealand Law/Criminal/Mistake

Definition

Where no intention, knowledge or recklessness exists due to mistake (even if the mistake is not reasonable).

Cases

R v Wood

• Facts

1. D cultivated pot, claimed she thought they were tomatoes.
2. Judged directed jury to use their own knowledge of how cannibus and tomatoes grown.

• Held

1. Misdirection – no evidence on matter, jury not entitled to take notice.
2. Following DPP v Morgan, honest belief need not be reasonable.

R v Metuariki

• Facts

1. Defendant picked wild mushrooms, sold to undercover police officer, charged with supply of class A controlled drug.
2. Defendant knew mushrooms made you high, didn’t know contained class A drug, or illegal.

• Held

1. To establish prima facie case, crown must prove defendant (i) supplied mushrooms (ii) mushrooms were a controlled drug.
2. Knowledge would be presumed unless defendant introduce evidence that he honestly believed his actions were innocent.
3. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
4. For example, it is not a defence to claim that a person thought he was supplying a different controlled drug.
5. 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.
6. Accused entitled to acquittal unless jury convinced otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.