Criminal Attempts; Criminal Participation; Joint Enterprise Flashcards
Criminal Attempts; The Proximity Test
So close to the commission of the crime that is is punishable
R v Robinson
D has committed the Last act necessary on his part to commit the offence
R v Stonehouse
S 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981: Actus Reus
Actus Reus:
Performing an act which is more than merely preparatory
Ruling Test: Defendant is “on the job”
S 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981: Mens Rea
Intention to Commit an Act (no recklessness)
(with attempted murder, intention to cause GBH not enough)
Even if the actual commission of the crime is impossible the D is judged according to what he thought the facts were
(shivpuri: think your Delivering drugs, tried as if it were drugs)
Criminal Attempts Reform
Wilson:
Need a clearer definition of Criminal attempts and a definition of what the “last acts” are
A new offence of criminal preparation will be just as vague.
Theory of Derivative Liability
Accessory to a crime derives his liability form the Principals commission of the crime because A:
- A is an accomplice to the crime
- A has consented to the commission of the crime
- A has encouraged the commission of the crime
Perpetrator: the Principal Offender
Participants: Accessories/Accomplices
Doctrine of Innocent Agency
Where the person who instigates the commission of a crime is the Principal Offender if the other individual completely lacks mens Rea
P asks A to put treatment in her pool but tis really poison to kill her husband.
Cogan v Leek
Accessoryship Actus Reus
Aid/abet: Help or encourage by presence
Counsel: Advise
Procure: Instigate, procure by endeavour
Doing nothing is not aiding and abetting (r v Clarkson)
Encouraging must be communicated; Assistance doesn’t (state v Kelly)
A Causal link is not necessary (r v Calhaem)
Accessoryship; Mens Rea
Intention to assist or encourage when:
A) it is his purpose or desire to assist or encourage the Principal to commit the offence
B) when he knows that his Act/Words will have the effect
Direct Intention: Prove only that it is A’s purpose to assist or encourage
Indirect Intention: Prove only that A knew that his acts or words would assist or encourage P to commit the offence
(r v Gillick)
Accessoryship; Knowledge of the Circumstances
A must know the essential matters which constitute the offence.
1) Know what he is doing or saying will assist or encourage P to commit the offence
2) Does A know the facts which make P’s act criminal
Knowledge doesn’t need to be very detailed
R v Bainbridge
r v Maxwell
Joint Enterprise Liability
A remains liable for any crime committed by P so lone as P does not depart deliberately from the Joint Enterprise
(AR + MR same as Accessory)
Joint enterprise liability; Deliberate variations
A is not liable for consequences of P’s deliberate variations from the Joint Enterprise
Davies v DPP R v Willett
Exception: Unless the Deliberate Variation by P was within the contemplation of A
R v Powell
Joint Enterprise Liability: Fundamentally different rule
P’s mode of killing is fundamentally different from what was contemplated by the joint enterprise
P produces a weapon of which A is unaware and is more lethal than A contemplates and so is fundamentally different
A is not liable if the killing by P is unforeseen and done with an unknown weapon of greater lethality
Withdrawal from Complicity (JE)
Factors:
- Extent of A’s involvement
- Degree to which JE has advanced
- Nature of the offence
Communication is necessary to remove liability; UNLESS
R v Grundy R v Rook
your participation is Active assistance at the scene in which case simple communication will not be effective only Active Intervention
Bacerra & Cooper
