Accessorial Liability Flashcards
AR of secondary party liability
aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence
MR of secondary party liability
intention to commit AR; knowledge of essential matters which constitute the offence
definition of terms aid, abet, counsel and procure
AG’s Ref No1 of 1975 [1975]
what is aiding and when does it occur?
helping, assisting, supporting; occurs before or during the offence
driving the principal to the crime scene- bomb in a pub
aiding-Maxwell [1978]
supplying information/equipment which helps D commit the offence- oxygen cutting equipment
Brainbridge [1960]
what is abetting and when can it occur
encouraging or inciting the principal; at the time of the offence- requires presence at scene
mere presence at a crime scene is not enough. A positive act is required
R v Coney [1882]- illegal prize fight
it must be proven that the defendants wilfully encouraged the offence- 18yr old girl; rape/ roommate; drugdealer;
Clarkson & Carroll [1971]- they were standing outside the room; Bland [1988]
an example of a spectator being held guilty of aiding and abetting a crime- contrasting with the principal of wilful encouragement
Wilcox v Jeffery [1951]- entered country illegally to play the saxophone. D went to watch and bought a ticket- presence and encouragement was established
a defendant can aid or abet an offence through inactivity if he/she is in a position of control or authority
Tuck v Robson [1970]
what is counselling and when does it occur?
advising, soliciting, encouraging; before the principal offence- doesn’t need to present at crime scene
there must be some ‘causal connection’ between the act of the secondary party and the commission of the offence
Bryce [2004]
what is procuring and when does it occur?
to produce by endeavour- taking the appropriate steps to produce a certain result; occurs before the offence
secretly laced friend’s drink with alcohol, when she had to drive later that night
AG’s Ref No 1 of 1975
is a causal link required for procuring?
yes
letting overweight lorry leave the depot will fulfil the MR for s.8 offence
National Coal Board v Gamble [1959]
D must foresee the likelihood that the principal would commit the AR of the offence- as regards to MR
Webster [2006]
if principal does not perform the AR of the offence, no accessorial liability may arise
Thornton v Mitchell [1940]
if principal lacks the MR of an offence, accessorial liability may still arise
Cogan and Leak [1975]- rape case; Millward[1994]- old offence of killing through reckless driving
parasitic accessorial liability- the wrong turn in the law
Chan Wing-Siu [1985] Powell and Daniels; English [1997]
the decision which limited the scope of the doctrine of joint enterprise
R v Jogee [2016]
what was the wrong turn in the law proclaiming
D2’s foresight equates to intention- mens rea
concerns arose that many people would appeal in ‘miscarriages of justice’ but they weren’t successful
Dismissed in R v Varley [2017]; R v Agera [2017]; R v Towers [2019]
What was the reasoning for allowing the appeal in Crilly [2018]- again murder case?
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
Why was the appeal in R v Dreszer [2018] allowed?
the jury could not be sure that D had intention, only because of his foresight- judge had wrongly directed them- under old law
‘overwhelmingly supervening event’- OSE give 2 examples of cases where the court reached a different verdict for D based on facts of the cases
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!
withdrawal before offence- what is to be done
withdrawal needs to be communicated- Whitefield [1984]; otherwise simply not turning up is no good- Rook [1993]
withdrawal at the scene of crime
must do more than simply communicate- i.e.- countermand- Becerra and Cooper [1976]- not just say ‘c’mon lets go!’
withdrawal from spontaneous violence- general rule
unequivocal communication of withdrawal is generally also required: Robinson [2000]
withdrawal from spontaneous violence- exceptional case
Mitchell and King [1999]- D2 simply walked away, but this was sufficient to quash his murder conviction
Which act overlaps with the offences discussed here under s.8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?
Serious Crime Act 2007
I am the getaway driver, under which section/act may I be charged?
s.4 or 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967- accessory after the fact
