Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRIMINAL LAW > Crim: w.10 - AUXILIARY LIABILITY > Flashcards

Crim: w.10 - AUXILIARY LIABILITY Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What are the 3 inchoate offences?

A
  1. Incitement
  2. Conspiracy
  3. Attempts

… to commit an offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Do inchoate offences require commission of the relevant offence?

A

No

But it is possible to charge someone even when the complete offence is carried out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does inchoate mean?

A

Incomplete

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is incitement?

A

Inciting another to commit a criminal offence, intending that the principal offence be committed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What else does incitement encompass?

A

requesting or encouraging another person to commit an offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Is explicit instruction required for incitement? (case)

A

No.

Baxter v HM Adv

  • incitement held even though there was no explicit instruction.
  • Conversation discussing crime and accused’s motive was enough to convict.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the inchoate offence of conspiracy?

A

Conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more persons to commit a crime (which would have been a crime if 1 person had committed it).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 2 key requirements for conspiracy?

A
  1. Agreement +

2. Criminal purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Which case held that there is no need for an express agreement in Conspiracy, it can be inferred from actions?

A

Coleman
* was not in room during the agreement to carry out crime, but joined in with group - picked up weapon and pressured others into joining in.

held: conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Wilson, Latta and Rooney hold re: conspiracy?

A

Wilson, Latta and Rooney

* Crimes done in the aim of initial conspiracy can be considered freestanding crimes- even if acquitted of conspiracy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Can one party be convicted of conspiracy if the other is acquitted? (case)

A

Yes

Howitt

  • 1 party can still be convicted if the other party is acquitted
  • trials are about legal guilt - ‘beyond reasonable doubt’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What statute confirms that attempts are crimes?

A

Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995, s294:

confirms that trying, unsuccessfully, to commit a crime is an offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the actus reus of an attempt? (case) What is the test?

A

Test for attempt:
when the accused has gone from “preparation to perpetration”

HM Adv v Camerons
* Couple lied to police that pearls were stolen - this was enough even though they hadn’t actually made the fraudulent insurance claim yet.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the mens rea for an attempt?

A

Mens rea for an attempt is the same as the full offence .

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Cawthorne v HM Adv?

A

Cawthorne v HM Adv

  • Accused was guilty of attempted murder even though he had not attempted to kill.
  • Fired shot into a room
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is impossibility a defence to inchoate offences?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What was held in *Docherty v Brown?

A

Docherty v Brown
* Accused obtained tablets he mistakenly believed contained drugs

Held: ‘attempt’ offence - regardless of impossibility he had moved from “preparation to perpetration”.
(attempt is disinct offence from the completed crime)

18
Q

Is impossibility a defence for conspiracy? (case)

A

No

Maxwell
* Accused could still be guilty when attempting to bribe a licensing board - even though that board were powerless to actually grant his license thus the final crime was impossible.

19
Q

What is art and part liability?

A

If a group of people share a common purpose to commit an offence, each member may be liable regardless of their individual contribution.

20
Q

What is different about art and party liability from an inchoate offence?

A

One cannot be liable for art and part unless the principal offence is actually committed.

Whereas inchoate offences are incomplete.

NB – liability is for the relevant offence (not a separate, inchoate offence)

21
Q

Which case lays down the basic principles for art and part?

A

HM Adv v Lappen

* Basis of liability is a common purpose to commit a crime.

22
Q

What happens if there is no common purpose?

A

There is no art and part - each accused is assessed separately.

23
Q

What happened in HM Adv v Welsh and McLachlan?

A

HM Adv v Welsh and McLachlan

  • 2 men broke into elderly woman’s home, stole things and murdered her.
  • Was not clear which one had struck the fatal blow.
  • not enough evidence to suggest common purpose so each man had to be assessed separately.
  • not enough evidence to convict one for the fatal blow – both were acquitted.
24
Q

Was there a common purpose for art and part in HM Adv v Johnstone and Stewart?

A

No.

HM Adv v Johnstone and Stewart

  • A put pregnant woman in touch with B who carried out the abortion.
  • A did not know B and no fee was exchanged.
  • Judge directed jury to not hold liable if they found there was no fee and did not know each other.

Held: No art and part liability – no common purpose.

25
Q

Which case illustrates that explicit agreement is the easiest way to establish common purpose, but that is not necessary?

A

Gay v HM Adv

  • child A instructed by to sexually assault another child, by child B.
  • Issue: convicting child B of sexual assault on deleting the reference to instigating .

Held: ‘spontaneous common purpose’ enough
– jury could hold there was a common purpose even though there was no explicit instruction, because there was evidence of instruction (encouragement)

26
Q

Are all parties guilty of the offence of art and part, regardless of their contribution?

A

Yes, in general.

There must be some contribution though (Kerr)

27
Q

Which case stated that an omission not to assist a ravished woman did not constitute art and part?

A

HM Adv v Kerr

* omission not to assist a ravished woman did not constitute art and part

28
Q

What happened in Fee v HM Adv

A

Fee v HM Adv
* mother concealed child abuse by her partner
Held: art and part - she facilitated the enterprise.

29
Q

In which case was a wife not liable for the full extent of assault injuries that happened before she joined in with husband?

A

McLaughlan v HM Adv

  • Man assaulted woman, then wife joins in.
  • Man and wife both convicted of assault to severe injury and danger to life, wife appealed:

Held: Prosecution was unable to show that the very serious injuries (eventually led to death) had happened after the wife joined in… therefore she was not convicted of assault to severe injury and danger to life. She was convicted of assault to injury from the point she joined in.

30
Q

What was the principle in Kabalu v HM Adv?

A

It may be possible for someone to be liable for crimes one witnessed, before actually joining in.

Kabalu v HM Adv

  • Before K arrived, victim had already been subject to severe injuries that would already kill him.
  • K witnessed more injuries, then joined in.

Held: could not be liable under art and part for the murder – he had not witnessed the extremely grave injuries inflicted.

BUT It might be possible for someone who joins in partway through for actions he saw happen before he joined in.

31
Q

What role do accessories and co-principals have in art and part?

A

Accessories: peripheral role to Principal

Co-Principals: joint role - both actively involved.

32
Q

What happened in Young v HM Adv?

A

Young v HM Adv

  • Co-accused were senior in company, acquitted for fraud.
  • A did not have power to carry out fraud, so since his co-accused were acquitted A was also acquitted.
33
Q

How was Young distinguished in Capuano v HM Adv?

A

Capuano v HM Adv

  • All 3 people very actively involved in throwing/attempting to throw bricks.
  • 2 acquitted, 1 was convicted. He appealed.
  • Court distinguished from Young: here they were all co-principals. The acquittal of co-principals made no difference to his liability
34
Q

What is the test when someone goes beyond the ‘common purpose’ in art and part?

A

was conduct foreseeable as a result of joint venture?

35
Q

What happened in O’Connell v HM Adv?

A

O’Connell v HM Adv

  • Set out to assault with sticks.
  • 1 uses hammer instead

Held: foreseeable - sticks and hammers similar enough.

36
Q

Why was the outcome of going beyond common purpose different in McKinnon v HM Adv than in O’Connell?

A

McKinnon v HM Adv

  • Agreed to commit assault and robbery - brought knives for robbery to threaten.
  • During the course of the robbery, 2 Vs were injured and 1 V killed.
  • Unclear which member inflicted fatal wound.

Held: Liability is based on what is foreseeable as likely to happen.

Here there was an obvious risk that life may be taken – group held liable for death. Even if death not part of original plan. Because knives were in contemplation.

37
Q

If someone is killed in art and part, how is mens rea determined to decide which type of homicide offence applies?

A

If you do know who carried out fatal act, their mens rea will tell you what kind of homicide offence applies.

Otherwise will have to look at the situation to decide if murder or culpable homicide.

38
Q

Why is art and part so controversial?

A

Art and Part is controversial because someone an be convicted of mandatory life sentence (if for murder) without actually carrying out the crime or agreeing to it.

39
Q

What happened in Jogee and how is English law now different from scots in the area of art and part/joint enterprise?

A

Similar doctrine in English law was abolished v recently in Jogee, UKSC overturned the rule - reflected concerns about the fairness of imposing liability in this way.

Jogee:

  • where someone goes beyond the common purpose any accessories will only be liable if they intended to encourage and assist.
  • Narrowed doctrine to the point that you would have to show intention.

Roll out not totally clear yet.
Foresight is sometimes seen as evidence of intention, so how far this actually goes is unclear.

40
Q

Can someone withdraw in art and part? (case)

A

Yes, but withdrawal must be done before at a stage that would make a difference to crime being carried out.

MacNeil

  • May avoid liability if they disassociate from common purpose and tell the other members of the group they’re withdrawing.
  • Must discourage the others from going ahead – must happen at a stage were doing it would make a difference to crime being carried out.

Test: moving from preparation to perpetration.
If activities already at perpetration, still liable.

41
Q

Do common law principles of art and part apply to statutory offences? (statute)

A

Yes

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, s 293

42
Q

Art and part can apply to statutory offences even where the offence can only be committed by a certain type of person that they aren’t. Which case illustrates this?

A

Vaughn

* Man convicted of art and part incest even though he was not one of relevant relations.

CRIMINAL LAW (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions