11. Parties to a crime Flashcards
If an accomplice aids the principal to commit a crime, but their Mens Reas are different, on which MR will the accomplice be judged on?
The accomplice will be judged on their own MR at the time
AR of Accomplice Liability
- aiding
- abetting
- counselling
- procuring
- Before or at the time of the offence
Requirements for a party to ‘abet’ the principle in committing a crime
There must be a meeting of minds at some stage between the accomplice and the principal
- if the accomplice encourages it but the principal is not aware of this, this is not sufficient
Who is the ‘principal offender(s)’ to the crime?
Those who have actually carried out the actus reus of the crime
First step in establishing accomplice liability?
1) the AR must actually be satisfied for the offence (the crime must have been committed)
Definition: Aiding
Helping or assisting either before or at the time of the offence
Definition: Abetting
Encouragement at the time of the crime
Definition: Counselling
Instigating / encouraging the commission of the offence (before crime committed)
Definition: Procuring
Acting to bring about commission of the offence (happens before crime occurs)
When is a ‘meeting of minds’ required to establish criminal liability for an accomplice?
1) Abetting the principal
2) Counselling the principal
When is it required that there is a causal link between the accomplice’s action and the criminal offence
If the accomplice was ‘procuring’
MR of Accomplice Liability
1) Accomplice intended to do the act / speak the words that encouraged or procured the offence
2) Accomplice had knowledge of the relevant circumstances
- need not know exact details
When might the criminal liability of the principal and accomplice be for DIFFERENT offences?
1) If there are offences with a shared actus reus (ie. s 18 and s 20 or murder and manslaughter)
2) A is guilty to the offence that matches their own MR
- could have a ‘higher’ MR than P
- could have a ‘lesser’ MR than P
What happens if the principal ‘goes beyond’ the scope of the plan agreed between the parties? What happens if the accomplice foresees this is a likely possibility?
A will only be liable as an accomplice to this new offence if they intended to assist or encourage P in this new offence
- If A foresaw that P MIGHT act in this way, the jury may be able to infer intent from this
When can an accomplice avoid liability by ‘withdrawing’ from the plan?
1) there must be an effective withdrawal
- when did it occur
- how was it communicated (it must be)
2) Communicating withdrawal unequivocally and timely may be enough
3) Usually will not be enough if this is communicated during the offence (or if they are told during the offence but continue to help)
- something more would be needed (ie. physical intervention, calling the police)
If this principal is tried and acquitted before the accomplice is tried - will this impact on their liability?
No, they will be tried regardless
What constitutes an ‘adequate withdrawal’ for the purposes of avoiding accomplice liability:
Depends on the stage the offence has reached
- Prep stages, words may be sufficient (and withdrawal of actions)
- Action stages, may need to positively act to keep the victim from harm
