Accomplice Liability and Attempts

Question 1

To attempt to commit a crime is an offence contrary to which statute?

Answer 1

s1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act (CAA) 1981

Question 2

What is the AR and MR of attempt?

Answer 2

AR:
(a) To do an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.

MR:
(a) To intend to commit the offence.

Question 3

What are the two other examples of inchoate offences relevant to the course?

Answer 3

Conspiracy (s1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977) and Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence (ss 44-46 Serious Crime Act 2007).

Question 4

As a matter of law, although significant steps need to be taken towards the commission of an offence for an attempt to be established, it need not be established that the defendant has done all that they intend to do.

Answer 4

Jones; Gullefer.

Question 5

For murder, only an intention to kill will suffice, not to cause GBH.

Answer 5

Whybrow

Question 6

For criminal damage, only an intent to cause criminal damage with suffice.

Answer 6

Millard and Vernon

Question 7

For offences involving an ulterior mens rea, the ulterior mens rea will suffice for an attempt charge.

Answer 7

AG Reference (No 3 of 1992)

Question 8

For attempted rape, the defendant must intend sexual intercourse either knowing of the victim’s lack of consent or being reckless as to their consent.

Answer 8

Khan

Question 9

Impossibility is no defence to a charge of committing an offence according to which statute?

Answer 9

s1(2) CAA 1981.

Question 10

A defendant will be deemed to have intent to commit an offence if, on the facts which they believed to be true, they would have had such intent.

Answer 10

Shivpuri

Question 11

Criminal liability for accomplices is laid down in which statute?

Answer 11

s8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act (AAA) 1861

Question 12

What is the AR and MR of accomplice liability?

Answer 12

AR:
(a) The defendant must aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of the offence.

MR:

(a) Intention to have done the act that assisted, abetted, encouraged or procured the commission of the offence;
(b) The defendant had within their contemplation all the circumstances of the principal offence.

Question 13

Which case held that the four words, aid, abet, counsel and procure, were to be given their ordinary meaning?

Answer 13

AG Reference (No 1 of 1975)

Question 14

Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not in itself sufficient to amount to the actus reus of accomplice liability.

Answer 14

Clarkson

Question 15

In some cases, the presence of the alleged accomplice at the scene of the crime without obvious evidence of encouragement has been held to be sufficient.

Answer 15

Wilcox (paying to attend an illegal event) and Lambourne (uncertainty over whether a man in a vehicle caught speeding was the driver or passenger, irrelevant as he owned the vehicle).

Question 16

Remaining silent, or failing to intervene where there is a right of duty to act to control the actions of the principal can amount to encouragement.

Answer 16

Tuck v Robson

Question 17

Failure of one parent to intervene to protect their child from ill-treatment by the other has been held to amount to encouragement.

Answer 17

Russell and Russell

Question 18

In cases of aiding, there is no need for a mental or causal link.

Answer 18

AG Reference (No 1 of 1975)

Question 19

In cases of abetting and counselling, there likely need be a mental link but no causal link.

Answer 19

AG Reference (No 1 of 1975); Calhaem

Question 20

In cases of procuring, there need be no mental link but a causal one.

Answer 20

Gnango

Question 21

A person cannot be convicted as an accomplice unless the actus reus of the principal offence is committed.

Answer 21

Dias

Question 22

Just because the principal offender may be acquitted does not prevent a defendant from being convicted as an accomplice.

Answer 22

Cogan and Leak

Question 23

In sexual offences, individuals will typically be charged as accomplices.

Answer 23

Bourne

Question 24

What are the two parts of the MR of accomplice liability?

Answer 24

From NCB v Gamble:

(a) An intention to aid (proved by a positive act of assistance voluntarily done); and
(b) Knowledge of the circumstances.

Question 25

Criminal law takes precedence over civil law.

Answer 25

Garett

Question 26

Mens rea must be established even in cases of accomplice liability to a crime of strict liability.

Answer 26

Callow

Question 27

A defendant must know that certain things were going to happen, or at least have contemplated that those things might happen which in fact constitute an offence.

Answer 27

Johnson

Question 28

An accomplice must know the type of crime in question, but need not know the exact details.

Answer 28

Bainbridge

Question 29

If a defendant has a range of offences within their contemplation, they could be liable for whichever of those offences the principal chose to commit.

Answer 29

Maxwell

Question 30

Accomplices can face more serious charges where they had a higher mens rea than the principal.

Answer 30

Howe

Question 31

Accomplices can be held liable for the offence which matches their own mens rea.

Answer 31

Gilmour

Question 32

If the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan, it is possible to treat foresight on the part of the defendant as evidence of intent, but not as synonymous with it.

Answer 32

Jogee

Question 33

Effective withdrawal from the plan is a question of fact in each case.

Answer 33

Becerra; Whitehouse

Question 34

Words alone may suffice for an effective withdrawal where such withdrawal takes place before a crime occurs.

Answer 34

Grundy

Question 35

A victim who encourages or procures a sexual offence that was meant to protect them cannot be charged as an accomplice.

Answer 35

Tyrell