Accessorial Liability Flashcards
Principle and accessory
Only one party (principal) commits the AR. The accessory provides some form of assistance
Joint principals
Both parties contribute to AR of the offence
Bourne case
Defendant was convict as accessory to buggery after forcing his wife to have sex with his dog - she was acquitted by virtue of duress
DPP v K and B
A person can be an accessory to an offence they cannot commit as principal
Key statute for accessorial liability
Accessories and Abettors act 1861 s.8
AR elements and MR elements of accessorial liability
AR– aid, abet, counsel, procure
MR– intention to do an act with knowledge that it will assist the principal; intention to assist the principal; knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the offence
Bryce (2004)
Shades of difference between aid, abet, counsel and procure but that all required ‘some form of causal connection’ between the assistance and the offence
-CofA required there to be some ‘catch all phrase’ to avoid acquittals based on the difference of meaning between the words
MR elements (summed up by Bryce)
Intentionally doing an act knowing it is capable of assisting the principal
Doing the act with the intention of assisting the principal
(Applies to first 2: “an intention to assist an not hinder or obstruct the principal in acts which the accessory knows are steps taken by the principal towards the commission of the offence”
Doing the act in contemplation of the commission of the substantive offence
“An accessory does not need to know precisely what the principal intends he must however have some knowledge of the criminal purpose of the principal”
R v Bainbridge
Knowledge of supplying cutting equipment was going to be used for a particular type of offence and would suffice to establish the MR of secondary liability
Maxwell v DPP
Accessory who did not know the precise nature of the offence intended by the principal would nonetheless be liable if the principal committed one of a range of possible offence that the accessory has within his contemplation
Withdrawal from participation
The rule is the more assistance that accessory has provided the more he must do to withdraw from the criminal enterprise
Whitefield
Provided advice prior to the commitment of the offence and sought to withdraw before the principal offenders had embarked upon the planned burglary
Becerra
Was held not to make effective withdrawal by fleeing the scene whilst a burglary was in the midst of being committed
“Communication of withdrawal must be timely and serve unequivocal notice upon the other party that if he proceeds upon it he does so without further aid and assistance of those who withdraw
Mitchell
Less time to communicate withdrawal if an offence occurs spontaneously therefore necessity of communication waived in revelation to spontaneous violence
R v Robinson
A def who initiated an attack would only be able to withdraw in exceptional circumstances and must give unequivocal communication to others that he was withdrawing
Anderson and Morris
Lord Parker: where two people embark on a joint enterprise, each of them is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise and that includes liability for unusual consequences if they arise from the execution of the agreed joint enterprise
Exception is if someone has done something so different to what was agreed that it is unreasonable to hold the others responsible
R v Powell and R v English
Powell : defs who realized that another party might kill with the necessary MR would be accessories to murder - knowledge that companion had by weapon was strong evidence that the accessory had considered the possibility that killing might occur
English : there will be no liability as an accessory to a killing caused by a weapon that the accessory did not know the principal possessed ; if the accessory knew that the principal had a weapon but the killing was caused by a different weapon of equal dangerousness accessorial liability for the killing will arise.
Greatrex
Dangerousness of different weapons should be left to the jury
How liability as an accessory to murder is established:
1) are you sure that principal offender intended at the time of the attack to kill the victim or cause GBH?
2) are you sure that the def who is charged as accessory took part in the attack? - did they actually use violence or help other use violence by encouraging them to attack? (mere presence at the scene will not suffice)
3) are you sure either that the action of the principal in producing the knife and stabbing the victim was within the common purpose of those attacking him or the appellant realized that one or more of the attackers might produce and use a knife and might kill with the intention of killing or causing really serious harm?
If yes to all of these then accessorial liability to murder is established!
R v Rahman
Makes no difference that the principal decided to use another weapon to commit the offence that the accessory did not contemplate - accessory will still be liable because had the necessary MR for murder or GBH
Intention must be “fundamentally different” - act must be unforeseen and more life threatening
