Crime - Inchoate Offences and Accessorial Liability

Question 0

R v Jackson

Answer 0

Irrelevant whether or not offence could have actually been carried out or not

Question 1

s1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977 - Conspiracy to [OFFENCE]

Answer 1

AR: Agreement between the parties relating to a course of conduct
MR: Intention to carry out that conduct -AND- with intention to commit the substantive offence in doing so

Question 2

s44 Serious Crime Act 2007 - Assisting in the commission of [OFFENCE]

Answer 2

AR: Action capable of encouraging/assisting the commission of an offence
MR: Intentioon to assist/encourage the commission of the offence

Question 3

s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 - Attempted [OFFENCE]

Answer 3

AR: Actions that are more than preparatory for the commission of the substantive offence
MR: MR of the substantive offence

N.B. Attempted murder requires intention to kill

Question 4

s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 - Accessory to [OFFENCE]

Answer 4

AR: Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the substantive offence
MR: intentionally assisting the principal, knowing it will assist in the commission of the offence, -AND- in contemplation of the criminal purpose

Question 5

s1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Answer 5

Impossibly does not prevent AR from being established, e.g. pick-pocketing an empty pocket

Question 6

Du Cros v Lambourne

Answer 6

Remaining silent or failing to intervene can amount to assisting the principal

Question 7

R v Dias

Answer 7

The principal must have committed the AR of an offence to give rise to accessorial liability

Question 8

Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland

Answer 8

D need not know precise details of principal’s activities, merely that he is assisting some criminal enterprise

Question 9

s50 Serious Crime Act 2007 - Reasonableness

Answer 9

D knew/believed that circumstances existed that made it reasonable for him to act as he did

Question 10

Withdrawal

Answer 10

D must appropriately communicate his intention to withdraw unequivocally and in a timely fashion

Question 11

R v Becerra

Answer 11

1. Notice must make it clear to other party that he is now proceeding on his own
2. Effective withdrawal may require more than words/communication; it may require direct intervention or calling police

Question 12

R v Grundy

Answer 12

Words alone may suffice where withdrawal takes place sufficiently far in advance of the crime

Question 13

R v Anderson and Morris

Answer 13

D’s are generally liable for ALL the consequences of a joint criminal enterprise,
UNLESS one D departs substantially from the common plan

Question 14

R v English

Answer 14

D will not be liable as a joint party to a murder if he was unaware of the existence of the weapon used by the other party

Question 15

R v Powell

Answer 15

Co-defendant will be liable if he knew of the existence of the weapon and foresaw that other D may use it to kill; also liable even if another weapon of equal dangerousness is used instead

N.B. D will only escape liability if killing was not within contemplation of joint enterprise, e.g. weapon (brick) intended merely to be used as a means of gaining entry to property