Complicity Liability Flashcards
where does the law for complicity liability come from
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
when does complicity liability apply
only when P goes on to commit the offence
what are the 5 modes of participation for a complicity offence
(a) as a Principal
(b) as a joint/co-principal
(c)as a principal thru an innocent agent
(d)as an accomlice
(e) uncertainty whether D is a principal or accomplice
explain modes of participation (c) as a P thru an IA using 2 cases
-P causes IA to perform AR, where IA’s actions are uninformed meaning no novus actus intervaenus
-Michael; mother guilty of poisoning son thru nyrse
-Cogan & Leak; IA raped D’s wife believing she consented, IA acquitted due to genuine belief in consent
what happened/ is the legal principle in Michael
-mother guilty of poisoning son thru nurse
-nurse = innocent agent
what happened/ is the legal principle in Cogan & Leak
-IA raped D’s wife believing she consented
-IA told by D that if she struggled it meant she liked it
-IA acquitted due to genuine belief in consent
where is the law for (d) as an accomplice found (3)
-s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
-s.44 Magistrates Court Act 1990 (said AA applied to summary offences)
-Joint Enterprise Liability (??)
what is s.8 AA 1861
(i) whoever shall: aid, abet, counsel or procure … shall be liable and tried as if the principal
what is meant by aid, abet, counsel and procure
aid = assist
abet + counsel = encourage
procure = procure by endeavour
explain legal principles for aiding (assisting) using 6 cases
-must aid at the time/ before the offence (Nedrick-Smith + Bainbridge)
-need not be essential, only of some relevance to P (Stringer)
-need not have positive/ pratical effect on P (Rowe)
-need not be close enough in time (Bryce)
-need not be known to P (Fury)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Nedrick- Smith and Bainbridge (separate cases)
-must aid at the time/ before the offence
-Nedrick-Smith; A drove P to crime
-Bainbridge; A equipped P with murder weapon
what happened/ is the legal principle in Stringer
-need not be essential, only of some (not substantial) relevance to P
what happened/ is the legal principle in Rowe
-need not have positive/ pratical effect on P
what happened/ is the legal principle of Bryce
-need not be close enough in time
-A drove P, crime was 12 hours later
what happened/ was the legal principle in Fury
-need not be known to P
-P didnt know A assisted in restraining V
- A still convicted for aiding
what are the 4 legal principles/cases explaining counselling (encouraging)
-low threshold, can merely indicate offence may be desirable
-unlike aiding, P must be aware of encouragement
-no need for factual/legal causation(Stringer)
-only some causal link needed (Calham)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Stringer
no need for factual/ legal causation
what happened/ is the legal principle in Calham
only some causal link needed
explain the 2 legal principles/ cases regarding procuring (by endeavour)
-A must play a causal role in comission (no NAI)
-can occur without assisting/encouraging (A-G’s Ref (1 0f 1975)
what happened/ is the legal principle in A-G’s ref (1 of 1975)
-procurement can occur without assisting/ encouraging
-A spikes P’s drink which caused drunk driving
-assisted without P’s knowledge
what are the 2 parts off AR for complicity liability
(1)assisting (aid)/ encouraging(abet/counsel)/procuring
(2)threshold for liability
give the 3 main thresholds for liability and the 7 cases that support them
-Presence; not sufficient (Willet), unless MR satisfied or A has a duty to act (Russell + Rubie v Faulkner)
-No duty to stop a crime as a witness (Clarkson) but length of presence (Francom) or behaviour (Wilcox v Jeffrey) may entitle jury to infer encouragement (Francom)
-R v N; liability needs presence + knowledge of others plans + intention to assist/ encourage
what happened/ is the legal principle in Willet
-being present is not sufficient to establish liability (unless MR satisfied)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Clarkson
-no duty to stop a crime as a witness
what happened/ is the legal principle in Wilcox v Jeffrey
-behaviour while present may entitle jury to infer encouragement
what happened/ is the legal principle in Francom
-length of time of presence may entitle jury to infer encouragement
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v N
-needs presence + knowledge of others plans + intention to assist/ encoyrage to warrant liability
what happened/ is the legal principle in Russell
-presence warrants liability if D has a duty to act
-A did not stop P from drowning a child
-duty arose from a personal relationship
what happened/ is the legal principle in Rubie v Faulkner
instructor let pupil drive dangerously
where does the general rules come from for MR of complicity liability
2 cases of Jogee & Ruddock
what happened/ is the legal principle in Jogee
-violent altercation with knife
-V died while A outside the house
-A had foresight of possibility of serious harm but NOT intention, not liable
what happened/ is the legal principle in Ruddock
-A tied hands of V for robbery
-P killed V
-A had foresight of possibility of serious harm but NOT intention, not liable
what is the test for MR from Jogee & Ruddock
(i) did A intend to encourage/assist/procure P to commit the offence
(ii) did A intend that P act with whatever mental element that offence requires
can foresight of serious harm be sufficient for the mr of complicty
-no, but it can be evidence of intention (Jogee & Ruddock) if there is a degree of knowledge about the circs of the crime
explain (i) did A intend to encourage/assist/procure P to commit the offence (6)and the cases included (4)
-as conduct must be voluntary, must intend their contribution NOT the full offence (Jogee & Ruddock)
-foresight can be evidence of intention IF they have a degree of knowledge of the circs of the crime (Jogee & Ruddock)
-degree of knowledge must be about essential matters, (Johnston v Youden)
-A need not know all details, must know P’s offence is in a range of possible offences A intends to assist/encourage (R v Bainbridge)
-unless crime is fundamentally different (Jogee)
-conditional intent is sufficient, treated like foresight
what happened/ is the legal principle in Johnston v Youden
-essential matters means the actions which constitute the AR of the crime
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Bainbridge
- A need not know all details of proposed crime
-must know P’s offence is in a range of offences which A intends to assist/encourage
-UNLESS crime is fundamentally different
what is the legal principle in Jogee about fundamentally different
-‘some overwhelming supervening act by a perp which nobody in D’s shoes could have contemplated’
-extremely high threshold
explain overwhelming supervening acts using 3 cases
-OSE comes from Jogee
-A is not guilty of offence Y if they only assisted/ intended to assist in X, especially if A has a a lack of knowledge of Y (Tas)
-BUT OSE cant be found if X and Y are closely connected (Lanning & Camille; escalation)
what happened/ is the legal principle in Lanning & Camille
-OSE cannot be found if X and Y are closely connected
-if knife produced in fist fight results in stabbing that is an escalation not OSE
when is conditional intent found and can it infer intent
-found if A directly intends to assist/ encourage P but is unsure of future facts
-doesnt matter if V hoped V would not be found after assisting (???)
-conditional intent not the same as intent to assist, treated like foresight eg evidence to help infer intent
explain (ii) MR A must know about something in D’s mind
-if A intended to encourage P to attacl V (MR(i) satisified) without intending P would act to intent to kill/GBH (MR(ii) not satisifed for murder) violence escalates (not an OSE) P deliberatley kills V
- P is guilty for murder and A dropdown manslaughter (Jogee & Ruddock) bc no inention but foresaw some harm
explain the defence of withdrawal by an accomplice ( no cases)(3)
-must occur before P commits offence
- no strict rules for what amounts to withdrawal
-if MR is at the time of assistance/ encouragement (not when P commits offence) then withdrawal should be done before ass/enc is effective
what cases explaon the defence of withdrawal by an accomplice
Becerra; communication of withdrawal must serve clear notice to P
Gallant; instigators would have to do more than a pawn would do
-Otway; no need to prevent crime from occurring
-Rook; some communication needed even when attack is spontaneous
what happened/ is the legal principle in Becerra
communication of withdrawal must serve clear notice to P
what happened/ is the legal principle in Gallant
instigators would have to do more than a pawn would do
what happened/ is the legal principle in Otway
no need to prevent crime from occurring
what happened/ is the legal principle in Rook
some communication needed even when attack is spontaneous
