Accomplice Liability

Question 1

What is the liability of accessories governed by?

Answer 1

Criminal law act 1997 & doctrine of common design

Question 2

What elements does the liability of accessories require?

Answer 2

Actus Reus & men’s rea

Question 3

What does act say about accessories before & at the fact?

Answer 3

S7(1) 1997 act: any person who aids, abets, councils or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried & punished as a principal offender

Question 4

AIDS & abets?

Answer 4

National Coal Board v Gamble (lorry)

Question 5

Counsels?

Answer 5

R v Calhaem 1985 (rival in love)

Question 6

Procures?

Answer 6

Attorney Generals Ref 1975 (laced drinks)

Question 7

Mere presence at scene of crime?

Answer 7

Does not attract criminal liability
R v Clarkson (soldiers)
Megaw J: willfully encouraged

Question 8

Knowledge of nature of crime?

Answer 8

Not necessary to prove precise nature
R v Bainbridge (Bank)
Developed further in DPP v Maxwell 1978 (UVF)
Enough to show accused knew nature of crime

Question 9

Knowledge of nature of a crime Irish law?

Answer 9

Adopted English Case Law
Dpp v madden 1977 (machine gun)
Test approved in Dpp v Egan

Question 10

Accessories after the fact?

Answer 10

S7(2): , any person knowing him to be guilty of the offence does any act with intent to impede apprehension or prosecution

Question 11

Concealing an Arrestable Offence for Reward?

Answer 11

S. 8(1), Criminal Law Act 1997 provides: any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence has been committed and has information which might be of material assistance accepts for not disclosing that information any consideration shall be guilty of an offence

Question 12

Withholding information? 🐀

Answer 12

Section 9(1), Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: if has information which might be of material assistance in—
(a) preventing the commission by of a serious offence, or 🐀
(b) securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a serious offence,
and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information to Garda.

Question 13

Doctrine of common design definition?

Answer 13

R. v. Anderson and Morris, [1966]:
[W]here two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise, but (and this is the crux of the matter) that if one of the adventurers goes beyond what has been tacitly agreed as part of the common enterprise, his co-adventurer is not liable for the consequences of that unauthorised act. …

Question 14

Common Design Caselaw?

Answer 14

Anderson v Morris: (Knife) judge told the jury that they could convict Morris of manslaughter even though he had no idea that Anderson had armed himself with a knife.
Endorsed in DPP v Cumberton (Certain place certain time)
Matter for Jury

Question 15

Tacit Agreement Caselaw?

Answer 15

Test reaffirmed in DPP v Doohan (cripple)
DPP v Murray (no express / implied term to kill guard) Griffin J dissented

Question 16

Change in Emphasis English / Irish Courts?

Answer 16

More expansive analysis by the Privy Council & HOL. extension of range of circumstances which accomplice can be rendered liable. issue of foresight
Irish Courts maintained traditional interpretation & have focused on the nature and extent of the agreement between the parties. no real shift towards examining the foresight

Question 17

Abandonment of Common design?

Answer 17

R v Whitehouse 1940: must be timely communication of the intention to abandon the common purpose from those who wish to dissociate themselves from the contemplated crime to those who desire to continue in it.”
R v Beccara & Cooper 1975 (window)