Association 5 Flashcards
- Explain case law R v Sanders in relation to Conspiracy
A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and therefore in existence until it is ended by completion of its performance or abandonment or in any other manner by which agreements are discharged
- The mens Rea (mental intent) necessary for conspiracy is?
The offenders’ mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist no crime has been committed
- Laying both a substantive charge and a related conspiracy charge is often undesirable because
- The evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges.
- The judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial, ie the jury may assume the accused’s guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and not look at the evidence, basing its assumption on the conspiracy charge.
- The addition of a conspiracy charge may unnecessarily complicate and prolong a trial.
- Where the charge of conspiracy is not founded on evidence or is an abuse of process, it may be quashed.
- Severance may be ordered. This means that each indictment or information may be heard at separate trials.
- What are the three conditions that need to be satisfied in order for an “Attempts” charge to succeed?
There must be:
• Intent (mens rea)
• Act (actus reus)
• Proximity (sufficiently close).
- Act(s) must be sufficiently proximate to the full offence
Generally, to prove an attempt the accused must have done or omitted to do some act(s) that is/are sufficiently proximate (close) to the full offence. Effectively, the accused must have started to commit the full offence and have gone beyond the phase of mere preparation – this is the “all but” rule.
- Once the acts are sufficiently proximate, the accused has no defense 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.
- You are not able to charge someone with an attempt to commit a crime where…
- The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence, eg manslaughter.
- An attempt to commit an offence is included within the definition of that offence, eg assault.
- The offence is such that the act has to have been completed in order for the offence to exist at all. For example, demanding with menaces: it is the demand accompanied by the menace that constitutes the offence.
- What is covered in Parties to offence S66 (2) CA1961
Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
- Discuss Police v Larkins
While it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance.
The mere commission of an act intended to have that effect is insufficient. Absence of knowledge by the principal that he is being assisted removes a common foundation for a finding of actual assistance, namely that the principal was able to proceed with his enterprise with the additional confidence gained because his accomplice was on the lookout for unwanted intervention.
- The ingredients of offence of Accessory after fact are
- That the person, who is received, comforted or assisted by the accessory is a party to an offence that has been committed.
- That, at the time of receiving, comforting or assisting that person, the accessory knows that person was a party to the offence.
- That the accessory received, comforted or assisted that person or tampered with or actively suppressed any evidence against that person.
- That, at the time of the receiving, comforting or assisting etc, the accessory’s purpose was to enable that person to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.
