Art and Part Liability

Question 1

what did Ferguson & McDermid state about criminal responsibility

Answer 1

a person is criminally liable for their own acts or omissions in a criminal act, BUT, where people act as a group, the whole group may be held responsible for the actions of each person

Question 2

what is the general rule of art and part liability

Answer 2

where two or more people engage together in committing a crime, each actor is equally guilty of the whole crime irrespective of the particular role played by each individual

Question 3

what are the defining features of art and part liability

Answer 3

• Requires 2 or more people
• Includes different roles within the group
• Can include advice on or prior agreement to carry out a crime, e.g. a contract killing

Question 4

what does S 293 of the Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 state

Answer 4

a person may be convicted of, and punished for, a contravention of any enactment, notwithstanding that he was guilty of such contravention as art and part only

Question 5

in what two scenarios will accused be held for their own actions, not the whole groups

Answer 5

if there’s…
- no common plan or
- if al accused are not parties to the plan

Question 6

what doesn’t common purpose require

Answer 6

• prior agreement
• express agreement

Question 7

case facts of HMA v Lappen

Answer 7

• Plan was to rob a van and assault the guard
• Six accused were charged but only three convicted of the crime of assault and robbery while acting along with another
• Evidence could only prove three knew of the common plan

Question 8

case example of participation and facts

Answer 8

HMA v Kerr
- A had taken no direct part in an attack on a girl in a field
- He simply watched through a hedge
Charge not proven

Question 9

case for omission and facts

Answer 9

Bonar & Hogg v McLeod
- Police officer didn’t intervene when another officer assaulted a prisoner
- Guilty are and part of the assault
- legal duty to act

Question 10

what is not a barrier to the conviction of accused

Answer 10

acquittal of other offenders

Question 11

case for acquittal of other offenders + facts

Answer 11

Capuano v HMA
- 3 A’s were charged together with assault after throwing bricks and stones at a car and injuring a passenger
- Capuano’s co-accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, but it was held that Capuano’s conviction could stand

Question 12

what don’t separate trials need to produce and case

Answer 12

• separate trials don’t need to produce consistent results
• case is Howitt v HMA

Question 13

what does it mean by ‘striking differences’

Answer 13

• It’s possible to distinguish between the A, and find some guilty of the crime of X, and some guilty of the crime of Y
• BUT, there must be ‘striking differences’ between the conduct of the parties for there to be differential verdicts

Question 14

what does it mean by distinguishing the mens rea

Answer 14

Courts will sometimes be prepared to distinguish the level of culpability by distinguishing the mens rea exhibited by a co accused

Question 15

case and case facts for distinguishing mens rea

Answer 15

Melvin v HMA
- Charge of murder and robbery
- No evidence of a common plan in respect of the murder
One A was convicted of murder, other convicted of culpable homicide distinguished by the level of recklessness displayed

Question 16

what was stated in Ferguson & McDermid about foreseeable consequences of a plan

Answer 16

Once the crown proves that there was a common plan, or criminal purpose, and the A will be held responsible for any foreseeable consequences of the crime, whether or not a particular A intended those consequences

Question 17

case facts of Codona v HMA

Answer 17

• A was a member of a gang
• Group committed 2 separate assaults on homosexual men
• A kicked the V and then the other members of the gang kicked and stamped on the V’s head causing his death
• A found guilty of murder by art & part liability - overturned on appeal
• The assault that killed the V was a separate assault and the consequences weren’t foreseeable

Question 18

why can’t A be held responsible for conduct that isn’t foreseeable

Answer 18

if an action of course of events is unforeseeable, it can’t be said to be part of the common plan

Question 19

case facts of Carrick v HMA (foreseeability)

Answer 19

• Knife used by Carrick’s co-accused
• The knife wasn’t foreseeable according to the Appeal court as there was no evidence that Carrick knew that the co-accused had a knife, or was likely to use one on this occasion

Question 20

case and facts for objective approach

Answer 20

• McKinnon v HMA
• Murder during the course of robbery, but the evidence indicated only one person inflicted the wounds
• 3 A’s appealed against convictions for murder
• Appeals dismissed with the court emphasising that an objective approach should have been taken, rather than a subjective approach
• Emphasis placed on foreseeability and risk

Question 21

case facts of MacNeil v HMA 9dissociation from the common purpose)

Answer 21

• Charge of trading in illegal drugs
• One of the A claimed he dissociated himself from the crime once he became aware of it, and tried to dissuade his colleagues from carrying out the crime
• Held liable - drugs were uplifted before he left the ship

Question 22

what happens in situations of dissociation from the common purpose

Answer 22

If a crime is merely in contemplation and preparations for it are being made, a participator who quits the enterprise can’t be held to act in concert with those who may go on to commit the crime because there will be no evidence that he played any part in its commission

Question 23

case facts of Vaughan v HMA (special capacity)

Answer 23

A was found guilty of art and part of incest - he had acted in concert with the boy’s mother