Accomplice Liability Flashcards
What is the AR of accomplice liability?
“To aid, abet, counsel or procure a crime” (Section 8 Accomplice and Abettors Act 1861)
Mere presence at the scene is not enough to establish the AR. Which case?
R v Clarkson
Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement and thus the AR. Which case?
Wilcox v Jeffrey
Remaining silent or failing to intervene when there is a special relationship can amount to encouragement. Which case?
Du Cros v Lambourne
If a principal escapes liability, the accomplice can still be convicted. Which case?
R v Cogan and Leak
What is the MR of accomplice liability?
- Intention to do the act that aided the principal
2. Knowledge of the circumstances
Withdrawal must be through timely, unequivocal communication. Which case?
R v Becerra
The defendant must know that a crime might be committed aided by their actions. Which case?
Johnson v Youden
An accomplice must know what type of offence they are aiding in. However, as long as the defendant had a specific type of offence in his contemplation, specific details aren’t necessary. Which case?
R v Bainbridge
An accomplice will be guilty of an offence appropriate to their own MR, even if the principal offender has a more serious MR. Which case?
Gilmour
For an accomplice to be liable for murder, he must foresee that one of those engaged in the joint enterprise may commit murder, ie may act with intent to kill or intent to cause GBH. Which case?
A, B, C and D v R
What did Lord Hutton say in Powell?
“It is sufficient to be an accomplice for murder if the accomplice knew that the principal offender might have the MR for the new offence”.
In Powell did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?
The accomplice foresaw the principal’s AR. They foresaw the accomplices MR. They were guilty.
In English did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?
They did not foresee the AR. They foresaw the MR. They were not guilty.
In Gilmour did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?
They foresaw the principal’s AR. They did not foresee the principal’s MR. They were guilty of constructive manslaughter.
An accomplice will not be guilty if they foresee the MR but the principal completes the AR in a “fundamentally different way” than what was foresawn. Which case?
R v English
In which case did an accomplice foresee the principal would commit the AR and foresaw the MR but did not know the precise way in which they would be carried out?
R v Powell
In which case was it found that the accomplice may have a lower MR than the principal, and will be guilty for an appropriate level of offence to their mens rea?
Gilmour
An accomplice must know what type of offence they are aiding in. However, as long as the defendant had a specific type of offence in his contemplation, specific details aren’t necessary. Which case:
Johnson v Youden R v Bainbridge R v Powell or R v Whybrow ?
R v Bainbridge
Procuring means “to produce by endeavour”. Which Judge in which case?
Lord Justice Widgery, Attorney General’s Reference 1975
What does aiding mean?
Helping, assisting or supporting.
What does abetting mean?
Encouraging the principal at the scene of the crime.
What does counselling mean?
Instigating or soliciting
Who was the Judge in R v Powell?
Lord Justice Hutton
What is the ruling in Powell?
As the accomplice went to the house of the victim knowing that the P might foreseeably do “serious harm” to V he was convicted.
What was the ruling in the conjoined case of English?
The harm that was to be done to the victim was “fundamentally different” to the harm which was actually done. The Accomplice thought they would hit the V with a wooden stick. P stabbed him. Not guilty.
What are the four tests in R v Rahman for accessory liability?
“1. What was P’s act which caused the death of V? (eg, stabbing, shooting, kicking, beating).
- Did D realise that one of the attackers might do this act? If yes, guilty of murder. If no go to the next question.
- What act or acts did D realise that one of the attackers might do to cause V really serious injury?
- Is this act or are these acts which D realise that one of the attackers might do, of a fundamentally different nature to P’s act which caused the death of V? If yes, not guilty of murder. If no, guilty of murder.”
Who was the Judge in R v Rahman?
Lord Justice Hooper
A diferent type of knife was not “fundamentally different” in which case?
R v Yemoah
