Criminal Law - Parties and Accomplices (11) Flashcards
Who are parties and accomplices?
Parties and Accomplices: Offences can involve both principal offenders and accomplices.
(1) Principals: The individual who commits the AR and MR of the relevant offence. There may be joint-principals.
(2) Accomplices: An individual who assists in an offence, without committing the AR themself.
What is accomplice liability?
Accomplice Liability: Individuals who aid, abet, counsel or procedure an offence are punishable to the same extent as the principal offender (s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861; s44 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980).
What is the actus reus for accomplice offences?
Actus Reus: An accomplice may assist an offence by aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the principal offence.
**Aiding **
Definition: Helping, assisting or supporting principal.
Time: At time of offence or earlier (but not after).
Example: Providing a weapon or information, or acting as lookout.
**Abetting **
Definition: Encouraging the principal.
Time: At time of offence.
Example :Saying ‘kick him’ during a fight.
Counselling
Definition: Encouraging the principal. Time: Before the offence.
Example: May include encouragement, threats, solicitation, winding-up etc.
Procuring
Definition: Causing the offence to happen.
Time: Before the offence.
Example: Taking steps to make offence happen, i.e. spiking to cause reckless driving.
Mere Presence
Mere Presence: Mere presence at the scene or failure to prevent an offence is not sufficient to establish a liability (even if mere presence encourages the principal) (R v Allan). There are some exceptions:
(1) Arrangement: Attendance was arranged with the principal, i.e. they are acting in support.
(2) Failure to Intervene: Failure to intervene may constitute assistance if the accomplice is under a duty to control the principal offender, such as a parent-child relation (R v Russell and Russell).
What is the link between principal and accomplice?
Link Between Principal and Accomplice: It is not always necessary that the act of an accomplice actually had any effect on the offence itself.
Mental Link
Mental Link: A mental link is the ‘meeting of minds’ between principal and accomplice, i.e. awareness of the assistance.
(1) No Link: No link is required for procurement - attempting to bring about the offence is sufficient (AG Ref 1 1975).
(2) Link: A meeting of minds is required for aiding, abetting and counselling. This generally means the principal is aware of or benefitted from the assistance.
Causal Link
Causal Link: A causal link is the process of assistance in some way causing the commission of the offence.
(1) No Link: Conversely, no link is required for aiding, abetting and counselling. The principal can act on or in spite of the assistance.
(2) Link: There must be a causal link for procurement (R v Calhaem).
What is dual prosecution?
Dual Prosecution: Though both principal and accomplice will generally be convicted, there are instances where only one or the other will be liable.
(1) Principal Defence: The principal may have a defence.
>A encouraged B to sleep with his wife, knowing she would not consent. However, A told B she had consented, providing B with a defence (R v Cogan and Leak).
(2) Principal Missing: The principal cannot be found.
>A was shooting at B and vice versa. B hit and killed a stranger, but escaped custody. A was charged as an accomplice to the murder, by aiding the shootout (R v Gnango).
(3) Innocent Agent: An individual may commit the AR but lack the MR. The procurer can be charged as principal.
>A tells B to destroy A’s clothes. The clothes belong to C, but B does not know this, so does not have the MR for criminal damage. A is charged as principal, by bringing the offence about by ‘innocent agent’.
>Innocent agency does not occur for rape, as principal offender engage in the intercourse (R v Bourne).
What is the mens rea of accomplice liability?
Mens Rea: The MR of accomplice liability is extremely complex. There are two main elements.
(1) Elements: Accomplice must have: a) intention to act; and b) knowledge of the circumstances.
(2) Joint Venture: Joint venture is a term for offences with more than one party, provided there is a common purpose. In more recent times, it has enveloped accomplices on the periphery of an offence as well.
(3) Strict Liability: Accomplices still require intention and knowledge to assist a strict liability offence, even though the principal offence require no mens rea (Callow v Tillstone).
Intention to Act
Intention to Act: An accomplice must intentionally or deliberately do the act or say the words that assisted the offence.
(1) Intention: This does not mean intention to commit an offence, merely that the assisting act was produced voluntarily (National Coal Board v Gamble).
Knowledge of the Circumstances
Knowledge of the Circumstances: Accomplices must have knowledge of the relevant circumstances.
(1) Knowledge: Knowledge is knowledge of the ‘essential elements constituting the offence’ (Johnson v Youden).
>They do not need to know the elements are actually a criminal offence.
(2) Extent: Accomplice merely needs to know the principal would commit one or more of a range offences (Maxwell v DPP).
>No need to know time or location (R v Bainbridge).
What is the liability for different outcomes?
Liability for Difference Offences: Accomplices cannot be convicted of an offence with a different AR to the principal, but can be convicted of offences with different MRs, whether higher or lower.
(1) Types of Offence: Types of offence with the same AR but different MR include:
>Murder and Manslaughter (unlawful killing of a human).
>S18 and S20 OAPA (Wounding/GBH).
(2) Example: A tells B to shoot blank gun at C. The gun is actually live. B kills C. B did not intend death, but knew the act was dangerous, so is convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. A is charged as accomplice to murder (R v Howe).
What is the accomplice liability if the principal exceeds the plan?
Liability if Principal Exceeds Plan: Plans may depart from the original plan. The accomplice may be liable for an unplanned offence depending on their state of mind and foresight (R v Jogee).
(1) Within Scope of Plan: If A and B intended to commit Crime 1, but then A commits Crime 2, B may be liable as an accomplice if they foresaw it as within the scope of the original plan.
>A and B rob a bank. A is armed. If A shoots someone, it can be inferred that B saw this as a possibility.
>A and B confront a rival gang with knives, hoping they will run. If A stabs one, B probably foresaw this.
(2) Knowledge of Principal: If A and B intend to commit a crime, but then A commits Crime 2, B may be liable as an accomplice if they were aware this was possible due to A’s tendencies and history.
>A and B burgle a house. A suddenly produces a gun and shoots the homeowner dead. B is liable if they were aware A carries a gun or has a tendency to, but not liable if they are completely unaware.
What is the accomplice’s liability if they withdraw participation?
Withdrawing Participation: Defendants may withdraw from offences before they occur, and escape liability completely.
(1) Withdrawal Before Offence: Defendants can withdraw before an offence occurs through express communication, which must be timely and unequivocal.
>A gives information to B for burglary. 2 weeks prior to burglary, A tries to persuade B not to commit the offence. This was evidence of an effective withdrawal (R v Grundy).
>If physical assistance is given, accomplices may be required to warn the victim or reverse the assistance.
(2) Withdrawal During Offence: Defendants can withdraw during an offence, but must do more than simply communicating their withdrawal.
>A and B burgle a house. A gives B a knife. When disturbed, A says ‘let’s go’, and runs away. B remained and stabbed the victim to death. A’s communication did not constitute withdrawal (R v Becerra).
>To withdraw during an offence, an accomplice may be required to stop the offence, or attempt to protect a victim.
