Accessorial Liability

Question 1

AR of secondary party liability

Answer 1

aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence

Question 2

MR of secondary party liability

Answer 2

intention to commit AR; knowledge of essential matters which constitute the offence

Question 3

definition of terms aid, abet, counsel and procure

Answer 3

AG’s Ref No1 of 1975 [1975]

Question 4

what is aiding and when does it occur?

Answer 4

helping, assisting, supporting; occurs before or during the offence

Question 5

driving the principal to the crime scene- bomb in a pub

Answer 5

aiding-Maxwell [1978]

Question 6

supplying information/equipment which helps D commit the offence- oxygen cutting equipment

Answer 6

Brainbridge [1960]

Question 7

what is abetting and when can it occur

Answer 7

encouraging or inciting the principal; at the time of the offence- requires presence at scene

Question 8

mere presence at a crime scene is not enough. A positive act is required

Answer 8

R v Coney [1882]- illegal prize fight

Question 9

it must be proven that the defendants wilfully encouraged the offence- 18yr old girl; rape/ roommate; drugdealer;

Answer 9

Clarkson & Carroll [1971]- they were standing outside the room; Bland [1988]

Question 10

an example of a spectator being held guilty of aiding and abetting a crime- contrasting with the principal of wilful encouragement

Answer 10

Wilcox v Jeffery [1951]- entered country illegally to play the saxophone. D went to watch and bought a ticket- presence and encouragement was established

Question 11

a defendant can aid or abet an offence through inactivity if he/she is in a position of control or authority

Answer 11

Tuck v Robson [1970]

Question 12

what is counselling and when does it occur?

Answer 12

advising, soliciting, encouraging; before the principal offence- doesn’t need to present at crime scene

Question 13

there must be some ‘causal connection’ between the act of the secondary party and the commission of the offence

Answer 13

Bryce [2004]

Question 14

what is procuring and when does it occur?

Answer 14

to produce by endeavour- taking the appropriate steps to produce a certain result; occurs before the offence

Question 15

secretly laced friend’s drink with alcohol, when she had to drive later that night

Answer 15

AG’s Ref No 1 of 1975

Question 16

is a causal link required for procuring?

Answer 16

yes

Question 17

letting overweight lorry leave the depot will fulfil the MR for s.8 offence

Answer 17

National Coal Board v Gamble [1959]

Question 18

D must foresee the likelihood that the principal would commit the AR of the offence- as regards to MR

Answer 18

Webster [2006]

Question 19

if principal does not perform the AR of the offence, no accessorial liability may arise

Answer 19

Thornton v Mitchell [1940]

Question 20

if principal lacks the MR of an offence, accessorial liability may still arise

Answer 20

Cogan and Leak [1975]- rape case; Millward[1994]- old offence of killing through reckless driving

Question 21

parasitic accessorial liability- the wrong turn in the law

Answer 21

Chan Wing-Siu [1985] Powell and Daniels; English [1997]

Question 22

the decision which limited the scope of the doctrine of joint enterprise

Answer 22

R v Jogee [2016]

Question 23

what was the wrong turn in the law proclaiming

Answer 23

D2’s foresight equates to intention- mens rea

Question 24

concerns arose that many people would appeal in ‘miscarriages of justice’ but they weren’t successful

Answer 24

Dismissed in R v Varley [2017]; R v Agera [2017]; R v Towers [2019]

Question 25

What was the reasoning for allowing the appeal in Crilly [2018]- again murder case?

Answer 25

this was a planned burglary; not a robbery and was not intended to involve violence; there was not enough evidence that D intended to cause GBH

Question 26

Why was the appeal in R v Dreszer [2018] allowed?

Answer 26

the jury could not be sure that D had intention, only because of his foresight- judge had wrongly directed them- under old law

Question 27

‘overwhelmingly supervening event’- OSE give 2 examples of cases where the court reached a different verdict for D based on facts of the cases

Answer 27

R v Tas [2018]- the event was a mere escalation of the Joint enterprise, therefore NO OSE!
R v Harper [2019]- spontaneous violence- anybody in D’s shoes could not have contemplated the knife’s existence- OSE!

Question 28

withdrawal before offence- what is to be done

Answer 28

withdrawal needs to be communicated- Whitefield [1984]; otherwise simply not turning up is no good- Rook [1993]

Question 29

withdrawal at the scene of crime

Answer 29

must do more than simply communicate- i.e.- countermand- Becerra and Cooper [1976]- not just say ‘c’mon lets go!’

Question 30

withdrawal from spontaneous violence- general rule

Answer 30

unequivocal communication of withdrawal is generally also required: Robinson [2000]

Question 31

withdrawal from spontaneous violence- exceptional case

Answer 31

Mitchell and King [1999]- D2 simply walked away, but this was sufficient to quash his murder conviction

Question 32

Which act overlaps with the offences discussed here under s.8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?

Answer 32

Serious Crime Act 2007

Question 33

I am the getaway driver, under which section/act may I be charged?

Answer 33

s.4 or 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967- accessory after the fact