7. Parties Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Who is a principal offender?

A

Person committing actus reus w/ requisite mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

When are two defendants both considered to be principal offenders?

A

If they act together for a common purpose, in committing the act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is an innocent agent situation, and who is liable?

A

Where a defendant asks another do something the defendant knows will amount to an offence, but the other person is unaware, defendant can still be guilty as a principal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Actus Reus for accessorial liability

A
  1. the principal offender must commit a principal offence.
  2. the accessory must aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of the principal offence.
    - take place before or at the time of the offence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is abetting?

A

Encouraging or inciting an offence at time offence is committed/crime scene

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Under the doctrine of joint enterprise, when might a secondary participant in a crime be treated as a principal?

A

If the offence (AR) was committed in the presence of both the principal and secondary party pursuant to a preconceived plan. Acting in concert.

  • Accessory is there when the offence is committed and intends for P to commit offence with requisite MR.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Distinction between principal offender and secondary party in committing offence

A

Secondary party/accessory does not directly commit the actus reus of the offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How much knowledge of the principal offence must a secondary party have
to be liable as an accessory?

A

must know circumstances forming actus reus.
AND
- principal offender would act with requisite mens rea.

  • wilful blindness = sufficient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

In what circumstance, must a causal link be established between the principal offence and an accessory’s conduct?

A

only necessary for procurement

  • there must be a causal link between accessory’s contribution and principal’s offending
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Is mere presence at the scene or failure to intervene/prevent sufficient?

A

NO - need to satisfy MR!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Mens Rea for accessorial liability

A
  1. knowledge of essential matters for the principal offence:
    - principal will commit AR and mens rea of offence.

AND

  1. intend to assist or encourage for the principal offence to be committed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Is it necessary to prove that encourage or assistance had a positive effect on principal offender’s conduct or the outcome?

A

No!
- Still potentially liable even where encouragement cannot be shown to have made different/was ignored by principal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Threshold of knowledge needed to satisfy the mens rea for accessorial liability

A
  • know the type or range of crime(s) being committed.
  • Not necessary for D to know exact offence taking place and particular details (who, when, where)

Contrast:
- insufficient = if simply aware that something illegal is happening.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Will accessory be liable even where principal offender commits offence beyond that which accessory intended to be committed by P?

A

No - accessory’s intention must match that required by principal offence.

  • if a principal offender escalates violence and kills victim = not liable as accessory to murder if did not encourage/assist w/ intent to kill. Instead, could be liable for manslaughter (R v Jogee).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can intention be made out even if accessory is not aware of the precise manner in which the offence will be carried out?

A
  • yes (DPP for N.I v Maxwell)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978]

A

Member of a terrorist organisation, was liable as an accessory for guiding the car taking a number of men to carry out a violent attack.

Even if he was unaware of the precise form of the attack they were to carry out (shooting, bombing etc) = intended to assist them in doing so.

17
Q

Does principle of transferred malice apply to accessorial liability?

A

Yes - provided that principal has not deliberately selected a different victim from that that foreseen or intended by accessory.

  • transferred malice only applies where principal mistakenly harms someone else.
18
Q

If principal deliberately selects a different victim than that intended/foreseen by accessory, what alternative offence should be considered?

A

charge of conspiracy/inchoate offence against accessory

19
Q

What are the two qualifications limiting the scope of secondary liability?

A
  1. Principal’s act is fundamentally different from that foreseen by accessory.
  2. Accessory withdraws from joint venture before commission of offence.
20
Q

Can oblique intention suffice to find party liable as an accessory?

A

Yes - provided type of principal offence allows for it.

21
Q

Doctrine of joint enterprise

A

where two or more people embark on commission of an offence together with common purpose, but only act of one of them (principal) is immediate cause of its commission.

  • everyone involved = liable as joint principals if they had foresight that principal might do with the requisite MR an act of kind which committed.
22
Q

How can a party successfully withdraw from offence?

A
  • If violence is pre-planned, must take active steps to prevent it by communicating with principal or law enforcement agency (but not necessarily spontaneous).
  • Questions of fact and degree, but general expectation that party should actively prevent offence from unfolding
    (cf. passively running away from crime scene).
23
Q

Where D1 and D2 participate together in one crime (crime A) and in the course of it D1 commits a second crime (crime B), will D2 be liable for crime B?

A

Not be liable as joint principal for crime B, but possibly as accessory provided D2 satisfies necessary elements.

24
Q

What constitutes abetting?

A

to incite, instigate or encourage principal at the time of the offence

  • communicate
25
Q

What constitutes counselling?

A

giving principal advice or encouragement before the offence is committed.
- must be connection between the advice and the crime.
- note = causation not needed.

26
Q

Is conviction of a secondary party and the acquittal of the principal is possible?

A

Yes

27
Q

Is it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt to commit an offence?

A

No, but it is an offence to attempt to aid, abet, counsel or procure

28
Q

Can accessory liability arise even where defendant is simply responsible for supplying principal with a weapon ?

A

Yes - amounts to procurement.
- No need for defendant to have further interest in what principal plans to do with it, as long as the weapon was supplied w/out lawful purpose/justification for principal offender possessing it.

  • There must be a causal link between D2’s contribution and D1’s offending
29
Q

Can a party be guilty as a secondary party where there is no principal offender?

A

No, since no actus reus has been committed to start with.

30
Q

What is the correct test when determining whether a party (D) to a joint criminal enterprise remains liable for subsequent offences committed by their joint principal?

A

Consider whether joint principal’s subsequent act is a ‘fundamentally different act’ amounting to an overwhelming supervening event.
- joint principal must have acted in a considerably more dangerous way than D intended.

-note - incorrect to pick answer referring to test as one of ‘mere possibility.’

31
Q

Can a defendant be liable as a secondary party for merely forseeing the possibility that the principal might commit the offence?

A

No - mere forseeability as to possibility is no longer sufficient.

32
Q

Can a defendant be convicted as a secondary party where the principal is charged with an attempted offence?

A

No - there is no offence of attempted complicity.
- one cannot be guilty as secondary party to offence that was not committed.