3. Parties - Elements - Party to a secondary offence Flashcards
Outline party to a secondary offence in S66(2) CA61?
Must Know
(2) Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose,
and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
What is the first situation in which two or more offenders may be charged?
Must Know
In situations where two or more offenders form a common intention (an agreement) and embark on a joint enterprise (commit an offence) together, for example a robbery (offence A), all who entered into the agreement can be charged as parties to that offence (offence A).
What is the second situation in which two or more offenders may be charged?
They can also be charged as parties to any other offence (offence B) that any one of them commits in order to assist in the commission of the offence originally agreed to (offence A), provided that the other offence (offence B) is known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of their common purpose (offence A).
Distinguish between where liability extends and does not extend?
This extends to include any unusual consequences that arise from pursuing the jointly intended offence (offence A). However, where one of the offenders goes beyond what was agreed then the other(s) is not liable for the consequences of the unauthorised act (offence B).
Provide an example of unusual consequences where all parties are liable?
Must Know
Where a person is a party to an agreed act with violence and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim does an act causing death, the secondary party is equally responsible in law for such violence.
In relation to the liability of all parties what was held by R v Betts and Ridley?
Must Know Case Law
An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.
How is the determination of knowledge decided relating to a party committing a particular offence?
Whether a defendant knew that furthering their common aim in a particular way would probably result in another of the parties committing a particular offence is a question of fact, on which the jury must decide.
What is the test for “known to be a probable consequence”?
Whether an outcome is ‘known to be a probable consequence’ is a subjective appreciation on the part of the offender (person A), where they must actually foresee the likelihood that their co-offender (person B) will commit another offence (offence B) when committing the original offence (offence A) agreed by both parties.
This does not require them (person A) to think that the commission of the offence is more likely than not. It will be sufficient where it can be
demonstrated that they (person A) knew there was a substantial or real risk or that the offence (offence B) could well happen.
However, where the person (person A) thinks the risk of the offence (offence B) being committed by their co-offender (person B) is negligible or only remotely possible then the mens rea required on the part of person A will be lacking
Under the general rule what is the first qualification in relation to probable consequence?
Must Know
There is no requirement that person A knows or foresees the precise manner in which offence B is to be committed by person B. Person A need only realise that an offence of that type is probable
Under the general rule what is the second qualification in relation to probable consequence?
MMust Know
There is no requirement that person A’s foresight of offence B include any appreciation of the consequences of the physical elements of the offence
committed (offence B), but for which no mens rea element is required
When is a person charged as a party to murder guilty of murder?
Must Know
- intentionally helped or encouraged it, or
- foresaw murder by a confederate, as a real risk in the situation that arose.
What is an innocent agent and how is the law applied?
Innocent agents are sometimes used by the offenders. An innocent agent is someone who is unaware of the significance of their actions.
In cases where the offenders use an innocent agent to bring about the actus reus, the innocent agent is not regarded as a participant in the offence, they are simply the mechanism. The law treats the offender as the principal in such cases.
Provide an example of an innocent agent?
An offender prepares a poison and puts it in a wine glass before handing it to a waiter for it to be given to the intended victim. Despite it being the waiter who gives the victim the poison, it is the offender who is responsible for the offence committed.
When is a person charged as a party to murder guilty of manslaughter?
- knew that at some stage there was a real risk of killing short of murder, or
- foresaw a real risk of murder, but the killing occurred in circumstances different from those contemplated, or
- can be expected to have known there was an ever-present real risk of killing.
