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)