Evolution of Offences

Question 1

Conspiracy - Act, ingredients, case law

Answer 1

s 310

Conspires with any person to commit an offence

R v Gemmell
Mulcahy v R
R v White
R v Sanders

Question 2

Attempts - Act, ingredients, case law

Answer 2

s72(1)

Everyone is guilty of having committed the offence who:
Intended to commit the offence AND
Did/omitted any act for the accomplishment of their objective.

R v Ring
R v Donnelly
R v Harpur
Simester v Brookbanks
R v Collister

s72(2) - Preparation v Attempt
s72(3) - Proximity - Simester & Brookbanks

Question 3

Agreement (Conspiracy)

Answer 3

An agreement - requires an intention to agree and an intention that the relevant course of conduct is followed.
Does not have to be detailed.

Intention to commit the offence - must mean to commit the full offence.

Question 4

The essence of the conspiracy is the agreement.

Answer 4

R v Gemmell

Question 5

Conspiracy requires an agreement of two or more people to commit an offence - agreement alone is insufficient.

Answer 5

Mulcahy v R

Question 6

Withdrawal (s310 Conspiracy)

Answer 6

Can only be done before the agreement is made.

Question 7

Conspiracy ends when it is performed, abandoned or discharged.

Answer 7

R v Sanders

Question 8

Can convict if other conspiring party is unknown.

Answer 8

R v White

Question 9

Omission (Conspiracy, Attempts)

Answer 9

Failure to do an act.

Question 10

Preparation v Attempt
Simester v Brookbanks

Answer 10

s72(2) is a question of law and decided by the judge.

Simester & Brookbanks - preparation becomes an attempt when the offender has done something more than getting himself into a position from which he can embark on the attempt/he has taken steps to execute the actual crime.

Question 11

Proximity (Attempts)

Answer 11

s72(3) - started to commit the full offence, has gone beyond mere preparation.

Question 12

Preparation becomes an attempt when the offender has done something more than getting himself into a position from which he can embark on the attempt/he has taken steps to execute the actual crime.

Answer 12

Simester & Brookbanks

Question 13

Completion of the Attempt is not required.

Answer 13

R v Ring

Question 14

Where the completed act is NOT an offence. Receiving property NOT stolen is not an offence.

Answer 14

R v Donnelly, Legally Impossible Act

Question 15

In deciding whether something has gone from Preparation to Attempt, must focus on quality of acts and time, place and circumstances collectively to ascertain attempt. Independent acts viewed in isolation could be seen as preparation, but seen together…

Answer 15

R v Harpur

Question 16

Parties to - Act, ingredients, case law

Answer 16

s66

(1) Everyone is party to and guilty of an offence who
Actually commits the offence
Aids, abets, incites, counsels, procures anyone to commit the offence.

2) Everyone is guilty of everything if outcome of offence was a probable consequence.

R v Renata - if the PP can’t be identified, enough to show defendant was either the PP or SP.
Larkins v Police - PP doesn’t need to know he is receiving aid, but aid must exist.
R v Russell - lack of intervention may be seen as abetting (ie encouragement, approval) and therefore Parties to - husband watched wife die.
R v Betts & Ridley - Consequences must have been probable.

Question 17

Probable consequence (Parties to, s66(2))

Answer 17

a substantial risk - R v Betts & Ridley - Consequence must have been probable eg secretly taking a knife not agreed on.

Question 18

Consequences must have been probable eg secretly taking a knife not agreed on.

Answer 18

R v Betts & Riddley

Question 19

(Parties to) If PP can’t be identified, it is sufficient to show that that each accused must have been either PP or SP.

Answer 19

R v Renata

Question 20

(Parties to) PP does not need to be aware they were being aided, but aid must exist.

Answer 20

Larkins v R

Question 21

(Parties to) Lack of intervention may be seen as abets (approval/encouragement) - Husband who watched wife drown.

Answer 21

R v Russell

Question 22

Acts done by accessory must occur after offence has been committed.

Answer 22

R v Mane

Question 23

Accessory after the Fact - act, ingredients, case law

Answer 23

s71

One who knowing any person to have been a party to an imprisonable offence
- Receives/comforts/aids that person OR
- Tampers with/actively suppresses evidence against them
To enable them to avoid arrest/conviction/assist them escape after arrest.

R v Crooks - Mere suspicion
R v Briggs - Knowledge inferred from wilful blindness.
R v Mane - Acts done by accessory must occur after offence committed.

Question 24

Knowing

Answer 24

Being free from doubt, believing.
Having ascertained facts or circumstances which you believe to be true.

Question 25

(Accessory after the fact) Actual knowledge or belief, having no real doubt that a person was a party to an offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement is not sufficient.

Answer 25

R v Crooks

Question 26

(Accessory after the fact) Knowledge can be inferred from wilful blindness, shutting ones eyes or not asking because they know the answer.

Answer 26

R v Briggs

Question 27

(Accessory After the Fact) Ingredient: the offence

Answer 27

Must prove elements of the offence and that it has been committed.

Question 28

Tampers with/actively suppresses

Answer 28

s71, Accessory - not a crime to fail to report, must be an active conduct relating to the offence.

Question 29

Receives, comforts, assists that person

Answer 29

Ingredient of Accessory after the fact.