Associated Offences Flashcards
What was held in the case of R v Mulcahy as it relates to conspiracy?
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself
When is the offence of conspiracy complete
The offence is complete on the agreement being made, accompanied by the required intent. It does not require any further progression toward its completion by those involved in the agreement.
What five points should be covered when interviewing conspiracy suspects
Interview the suspects concerned to establish:
• the existence of an agreement to commit an offence, or
• the existence of an agreement to omit or do something that would amount to an offence, and
• the intent of those involved in the agreement
• the identity of all people concerned
• whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose.
What are three groups of offences that do not allow for a prosecution in respect of an attempt?
You are not able to charge someone with an attempt to commit a crime where:
• The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence; ie manslaughter.
• An attempt to commit an offence is included within the definition of that offence, eg assault.
• The crime is such that the act must be completed in order for the offence to exist at all, eg person cannot attempt to demand money with menaces.
What ingredients must be proved to successfully prosecute someone for attempting to commit an offence?
In each case of attempt, you must prove the identity of the suspect and that they:
• intended to commit an offence, and
• did, or omitted to do, something to achieve that end.
What was held in the case or R v Donnelly in relation to attempts
In Donnelly it was held that : Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained .
The court decided that despite Donnelly’s mens rea and actus reus, it was legally impossible for him to receive stolen property as those goods were no longer deemed to be stolen. His conviction was set aside. An attempt to receive such stolen goods is therefore possible in fact, but impossible in law.
Once an offender has committed acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offence, there are three situations that do not amount to a defence to the charge. What are those three situations?
The three ‘defences’ that an offender has no recourse to once they have committed acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offence are that they:
• Were prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the offence, eg interruption from police.
• Failed to complete the full offence due to ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means, eg insufficient explosive to blow apart a safe.
• Were prevented from committing the crime because an intervening event made it physically impossible, eg removal of property before intended theft.
In what situations does a person become liable as a party to an offence under s66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961?
A person is liable as a party to an offence under s66(1) where they:
• Actually commit the offence.
• Do or omit an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit an offence.
• Abet any person in committing an offence.
• Incite, counsel or procure any person to commit an offence.
What is the distinction between ‘aiding and abetting’ and ‘inciting, counselling and procuring’?
In general terms, ‘aiding and abetting’ requires the aider or abettor to be present at the scene before or at the time of the offence being committed, whereas ‘inciting, counselling and procuring’ describe the actions taken before the offence is carried out.
What was held in the case of R v Russell
The accused was charged with the murder of his wife and two sons. Following an argument between he and his wife, the wife, in the presence of the accused, allegedly jumped into a swimming pool with both children, drowning them all. The accused failed to render assistance to his wife or their children. The court held that the accused was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender: R v Russell (1933) VR 59
What intent must be present in the mind of a person at the time of providing assistance to a party of an offence, so as to make that person liable as an accessory after the fact?
For someone to be held liable as an accessory after the fact, the intent required at the time of providing the assistance is that such assistance will:
• enable the offender to escape after arrest, or
• enable that offender to avoid arrest or conviction.
What is the principal difference between a party to an offence and an accessory after the fact?
The principal difference between a party to an offence and an accessory after the fact is that parties are involved in the offence before or during the commission of the offence, whereas accessories are involved after the principal offence has been committed.
List six examples of conspiring or attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
Examples of conspiring or attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice as per ss116 and 117 may include:
• preventing a witness from testifying
• wilfully going absent as a witness
• the taking or detainment of witnesses
• concealment of the fact a crime has been committed
• intentionally giving police false information to obstruct their inquiries
• supplying false information to probation officers
• assisting a wanted person to leave the country
• arranging a false alibi
• threatening or bribing jury members
Explain how possession of property can be established in a charge of receiving
Possession can be established by showing that the property is:
• in the immediate physical custody of the receiver, or
• at a location, over which the receiver has control (such as their place of business or private residence).
What is the doctrine of recent possession?
It is the presumption that the possession of property recently stolen is, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, evidence to justify a belief and find that the possessor is either the thief or receiver, or has committed some other offence associated with the theft of the property, eg burglary or robbery
