Accomplice Liability

Question 1

What is the AR of accomplice liability?

Answer 1

“To aid, abet, counsel or procure a crime” (Section 8 Accomplice and Abettors Act 1861)

Question 2

Mere presence at the scene is not enough to establish the AR. Which case?

Answer 2

R v Clarkson

Question 3

Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement and thus the AR. Which case?

Answer 3

Wilcox v Jeffrey

Question 4

Remaining silent or failing to intervene when there is a special relationship can amount to encouragement. Which case?

Answer 4

Du Cros v Lambourne

Question 5

If a principal escapes liability, the accomplice can still be convicted. Which case?

Answer 5

R v Cogan and Leak

Question 6

What is the MR of accomplice liability?

Answer 6

1. Intention to do the act that aided the principal

2. Knowledge of the circumstances

Question 7

Withdrawal must be through timely, unequivocal communication. Which case?

Answer 7

R v Becerra

Question 8

The defendant must know that a crime might be committed aided by their actions. Which case?

Answer 8

Johnson v Youden

Question 9

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?

Answer 9

R v Bainbridge

Question 10

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?

Answer 10

Gilmour

Question 11

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?

Answer 11

A, B, C and D v R

Question 12

What did Lord Hutton say in Powell?

Answer 12

“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”.

Question 13

In Powell did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?

Answer 13

The accomplice foresaw the principal’s AR. They foresaw the accomplices MR. They were guilty.

Question 14

In English did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?

Answer 14

They did not foresee the AR. They foresaw the MR. They were not guilty.

Question 15

In Gilmour did the accomplice foresee the principal’s AR? Did the accomplice foresee the principal’s MR? Were they guilty?

Answer 15

They foresaw the principal’s AR. They did not foresee the principal’s MR. They were guilty of constructive manslaughter.

Question 16

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?

Answer 16

R v English

Question 17

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?

Answer 17

R v Powell

Question 18

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?

Answer 18

Gilmour

Question 19

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 ?

Answer 19

R v Bainbridge

Question 20

Procuring means “to produce by endeavour”. Which Judge in which case?

Answer 20

Lord Justice Widgery, Attorney General’s Reference 1975

Question 21

What does aiding mean?

Answer 21

Helping, assisting or supporting.

Question 22

What does abetting mean?

Answer 22

Encouraging the principal at the scene of the crime.

Question 23

What does counselling mean?

Answer 23

Instigating or soliciting

Question 24

Who was the Judge in R v Powell?

Answer 24

Lord Justice Hutton

Question 25

What is the ruling in Powell?

Answer 25

As the accomplice went to the house of the victim knowing that the P might foreseeably do “serious harm” to V he was convicted.

Question 26

What was the ruling in the conjoined case of English?

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

What are the four tests in R v Rahman for accessory liability?

Answer 27

“1. What was P’s act which caused the death of V? (eg, stabbing, shooting, kicking, beating).

2. Did D realise that one of the attackers might do this act? If yes, guilty of murder. If no go to the next question.
3. What act or acts did D realise that one of the attackers might do to cause V really serious injury?
4. 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.”

Question 28

Who was the Judge in R v Rahman?

Answer 28

Lord Justice Hooper

Question 29

A diferent type of knife was not “fundamentally different” in which case?

Answer 29

R v Yemoah