Attempts & Accomplice Liability Flashcards
AR and MR must coincide in time, but can be one series of acts
THABO-MELI v R
If D has malice (intent/recklessness) to commit a crime against one victim, the malice is transferred from MR in relation to the original victime to the other unintended victim
R v LATIMER
Under the Doctrine of Transferred Malice, the AR must be the same type of crime as D originally intended
R v Pembliton
More than Preparatory - Significant steps need to be taken towards the full offence, but not necessary for D to have done all he intends to do
R v JONES
More than Preparatory - He must at least have embarked upon the crime proper (Question of Fact)
GULLEFER
More than Preparatory - Impossibility doesn’t prevent an act (AR) being more than merely preparatory - Also, had sufficient MR
R v SHIVPURI
For criminal damage - MR (intention) must be there - Reckless is not enough
R v WHYBROW
If recklessness to existing circumstances suffices for full offence, it will suffice for an attempt
R v KHAN
You won’t be prosecuted as an accomplice to a law intended to protect you
R v TYRELL
The criminal law will take precedence over civil law where, say, performing a contract amounts to knowingly assisting a criminal offence
GARRETT v ARTHUR CHURCHILL
AR of Accomplice - Words given their ordinary meaning - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure
A-G’S REFERENCE NO.1 1975
AR of Accomplice - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure - Mere presence at the scene is not sufficient for an accomplice – you need prior arrangement or some sort of encouragement
R v CLARKSON
AR of Accomplice - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure - Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement of a crime
WILCOX v JEFFERY
AR of Accomplice - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure - Silence where you have a duty or obligation to restrain another might amount to encouragement
DU CROS v LAMBOURNE
AR of Accomplice - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure - Pub owner who let customers drink after hours held to be an accomplice to drinking after hours because of duty to stop customers
TUCK v ROBINSON
AR of Accomplice - Aid, Abet, Counsel, Procure - Failure of one parent to intervene in ill-treatment by other parent of a child held to amount to encouragement
R v RUSSELL & RUSSELL
AR of Accomplice - A Crime - The AR of the actual crime needs to be committed by the principal to have an accomplice
R v DIAS
AR of Accomplice - A Crime - You can be liable as an accomplice even if the principal is acquitted as long as the AR is committed
R v COGAN & LEAK
AR of Accomplice - A Crime - Use of innocent Agents to commit the AR of a crime usually results in the D being convicted as the Principal rather than an Accomplice
R v BOURNE
MR of Accomplice - 2 Parts
NATIONAL COAL BOARD v GAMBLE
(1) Intention to do the act that aided the Principal
(2) Knowledge of the Circumstances
MR of Accomplice - Knowledge of the circumstances
– Knew suspected things amounting to AR would happen
– Don’t need to know it’s a crime, ignorance of law no defence
– D had in his contemplation all the circumstances of the principal offence
JOHNSON v YOUDEN
MR of Accomplice - Knowledge of the type of act is sufficient - Don’t need specific details
R v BAINBRIDGE
MR of Accomplice - If D has a range of offences in contemplation, he is liable for any of them actually committed
MAXWELL v DPP OF N.IRELAND
Strict liability: MR still needed for Accomplice to SL offences as well as Principal
CALLOW v TILLSTONE
It is possible for an accomplice to face a more serious charged provided the AR is committed
R v HOWE
Withdrawal - Unequivocal, effective and timely communication of withdrawal
R v BECERRA
Withdrawal - Words may be effective where A withdraws before crime
R v GRUNDY
All “co-adventurers”, principal and accomplice, are liable for the unintended consequence of carrying out a plan
R v LOVESEY & PETERSON
Where the principal has deliberately exceeded the plan, the accomplice will not have liability for the unauthorised act
R v ANDERSON & MORRIS
Where the principal carries out the deed contemplated by A and P, A should be guilty according to level of intent he acted with, including unintended consequences
R v GILMOUR
Where P departs from plan, A will not have liability for murder unless A foresaw that P might intentionally do killing or GBH
R v POWELL
If A foresees that P might intentionally cause GBH but (but not kill) and P causes it in a fundamentally different way to that foreseen by A (ie knife instead of stick) A will not be liable for manslaughter or murder
R v ENGLISH
Different knife is not a fundamental difference
R v YEMOH
