New Zealand Law/Criminal/Mistake

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

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.