No abstract

The results suggest that highly structured diagnostic interviews such as the DISC-R may not be appropriate for use with younger children of elementary school age in community-based studies.

No abstract

No abstract

The law of attempt draws a line between non-criminal preparatory conduct and conduct that is sufficiently close to the substantive offence to attract criminal liability. To assist with the linedrawing exercise, the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 specifies a test of 'immediate or proximate connection' with the intended offence. The New Zealand Court of Appeal has recently applied a very flexible interpretation to the statutory test, with the result that the line for criminal liability is now pushed back further than in earlier judicial interpretations of the provision. This article examines whether the Court of Appeal's approach is an appropriate method of assessing liability for attempt. With reference to proposals made by the Law Commission (UK), the article concludes by suggesting that instead of overly extending the margins of attempt, a separate offence of doing acts 'preparatory to' an attempt may, in some situations, be a more accurate way of labelling and penalising an actor's misconduct.

The rule that ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse is one of the pillars of the criminal law. However, it can prove problematic in some cases including those where an individual commits an offence in reliance on incorrect official advice. This paper argues that the orthodox judicial approach to such claims fails to address the concern that the defendant is held responsible for what is essentially the state's own mistake. Rather than advocating a full defence of officially induced error of law, a more appropriate solution is for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process by staying the proceedings. This ‘procedural’ approach, which identifies the state's role in the commission of the offence, has recently been adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and has the potential to be applied in other common law jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

No abstract