Art and Part Flashcards
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 s 293(1)
‘any person may be convicted of any statutory offence on an art and part basis’ or ‘acting in concert’ or ‘complicity’ in a crime
Khalid v HMA 1990
Supply solvents to underage children for the purposes of installation. ‘each knew, or may have known what the other was or might have been doing’ and so was guilty by association. Held that this definition where there was no reference to the need for a common criminal purpose to be established, was a material misdirection leading to a miscarriage of justice, and conviction quashed.
Lord Advocate v Lappen 1956
A number of men accused of robbery according to common plan. They assaulted van driver. A number of men were accused of robbery according to common plan. The jury were directed that if they were proved to be parties to such a common plan each of them would be responsible for the acts of the others, but if no common plan was proved, each was only responsible for his own acts. (rob motor van and assaulted the guard)
George Kerr & Ors 1872
assalut with intent to ravish, mere presence at the scene of crime is not sufficient. He simply watched, the facts indicate that he did not speak to the victim or make any motion to the victim. Art and part do not apply.
Stillie v HMA 1992
not mere presence (they fled together from the scene)
Bonar v McLeod 1983
Participation by omission, Senior police officer did not interfere when a junior officer was assaulting an arrested man. It was held that the senior police officer was guilty on art and part as a failure to act. Appeal dismissed.
HMA v Johnstone 1926
(Participation and degree of involvement; Counsel, instigation) Backstreet abortion, The person was looking for advice. Advice was vague. Lack of connections. The adviser known only a name, without any other information. This link held to be too tenuous to amount to art and part guilt.
HMA v Fraser 1920
(Participation and degree of involvement; provision of material (physical) assistance = an ‘aider’. one party lured the victim, the victim died from injuries. Held guilty - executed
McKinnon v HMA 2003
(Participation and degree of involvement; actual commission of the crime by principals) The group of ‘lads’ decided to commit robbery on the way they took/get knives. The broke to the house and attack a victim. They injured two persons and killed the third one. They evidence suggested that only one of them struck the fatal blow, but nevertheless four of attackers were convicted art and part guilt of murder (objective approach). They ought to know that the carrying knives around could lead to someone’s death. Definition common purpose.
Gallacher v HMA 1951
(Participation and degree of involvement; Actual commission of the crime by principals) Circus, big crowed, drunken argument. The two co-accused assaulted the victim, kicking him etc., who was later to die. So even though the common plan have been made before hand, their spontaneous actions constitute art and part guilt. Common purpose principle.
Kabalu v HMA 1999
(Participation and degree of involvement; actual commission of the crime by principals) Drunken situation. The one of the accused had already attacking the victim. His friend joined to give assistance. It was held that the accused was only liable for the injuries done to the victim after he joined in.
O’Connell v HMA 1987
(Participation and degree of involvement; art and part going beyond the common plan) Convicted of culpable homicide along with 3 co-accused. Appeal they argue that there is insufficient evidence that the hammer was used, which was cause of death. As they only agree on wooden sticks (the victim had a hammer). Appeal was refused, lethal weapon similar to hammer.
Codona v HMA 1996
(Participation and degree of involvement; art and part going beyond common plan) 14 year old girl, Group was attacking people that they thought to be homosexual in the park. They already attacked two persons with the third one they were acting more violent and the victim died. The girl said she kicked once. She was convicted of murder on the art and part guilt. Her appeal was allowed. It was held that given the relatively minor nature of the earlier assaults, the fatal nature of the third one would not be foreseeable to her.
Kabalu v HMA (No 1) 1999
(participation and degree of involvement; art and part going beyond the common plan)The accused appealed against conviction of murdering the victim, along with three co-accused. two further accused being convicted only of assault. He joined shortly after the assault began. The victim was unmoving but the accused kicked or stamped on his head once or twice and had to be pulled by others. He argued it was middle of the attack and his kicked did not kill the victim. The accused was looking for the victim, blood on his shoe. The conviction was exchanged. Insufficient evidence to hold that the accused must have seen the fatal violence, and it could not be affirmed that he had joined in that concerted attack.
Melvin v HMA 1984
(Participation and degree of involvement; art and part differences between the accused.) Both accused of murder. One was convicted of culpable homicide while the other of murder. He appealed. The court held that there was nothing inconsistent in the verdict and no miscarriage of justice. The jury has obviously differentiated between the degrees of participation and the recklessness displayed by each. Lord Cameron [367]
