Aiding

Question 1

Step 1 of aiding

Answer 1

Larkins
There must be proof of actual or real aid. The doing of an act with intent to aid is insufficient if it does not help in fact

If someone does something with the intent to be helpful, but does not actually help, they are not aiding

Question 2

Step 2 of aiding

Answer 2

Larkins
Any act of assistance will do, no matter how seemingly insignificant, inconsequential, or minimal. Providing “psychological comfort” (as with a pre-arranged getaway car or a pre-arranged lookout) is enough.

Question 3

Step 3 of aiding

Answer 3

The aid does not need to be the reason the 1º party was successful in committing the offence. If the offence would have been committed without the assistance, the 2º party can still be convicted through aiding.

Question 4

Step 4 of aiding

Answer 4

The 1º party does not need to be aware that the aid is being given (but there does need to be actual aid). Thus, there does not need to be any “meeting of the minds” or consensus agreement as with conspiracy.

Question 5

Step 5 of aiding

Answer 5

Ahsin v R (2015 SC): the aid does not need to remain operative at the time the principal offence is committed. The 2º party’s actus reus is complete once the aid is given.

Question 6

L passing by a robbery, decided to act as lookout for police

Answer 6

Larkins
When Larkins came onto the scene and started helping the crime/burglary had already been complete. Burglary is complete upon entrance of the building. Charged with accessory after the fact

Question 7

bank robbery where the principle party get in a second get away car to try confuse the police. Was driver of first car partry

Answer 7

Turanga
Included assistance within a minute or two after the robbery was complete. Larkins approach is favoured