Lesson Plan XI: Parties to an Offence Flashcards
Why is R v Briscoe important?
- Confirms that Willful Blindness can satisfy the Mens Rea requirement for Aiding
- Settles ambiguity in prior case law about what INTENTIONS are required for parties (just need to help in committing offence, don’t need to actual desire the end result)
- Widened meaning of abetting to include instigating as well
R v Dunlop?
Facts: Gang rape initiation.
Importance: Mere presence at scene of crime does NOT constitute a criminal offence. Something more is required (ie: encouragement/facilitation)
If mom walks into bedroom and sees man molesting her child + does nothing to stop it –> would the Ratio in Dunlop apply?
NO because the mom owes a legal duty of care to her child. This is an omission and WOULD be aiding.
R v Jackson?
Facts: Accused wearing rubber boots/sleeping in tent w/fertilizer bags near marijuana grow-op.
Importance: Adds onto R v Dunlop –> even if mere presence isn’t enough, if circumstantial evidence indicates that accused did more than just be at scene of crime, could be Aiding.
R v Greyeyes?
Facts: Accused helped undercover officer buy drugs, made $10 from facilitating transaction. Negotiated price/handled the drugs & money.
Importance: Establishes that third parties who provide incidental assistance to someone buying drugs will be party to purchasing, but NOT trafficking –> UNLESS you provide more than incidental assistance by introducing parties/negotiating price/handling payment and drugs/accepting money
Dissent in Greyeyes?
Drug trafficking is a business that relies on middle men to facilitate transactions –> no liability for trafficking.
R v Roach?
Facts: Phone fraud scheme, accused argued he didn’t know scheme was illegal.
Importance: Deals with Mens Rea of Aiding –> Establishes that Recklessness CANNOT apply to Mens Rea of Aiding, as accused must INTEND to help in the commission of the offence/have KNOWLEDGE. Only True Knowledge & Willful Blindness apply.
Tim asks Joe to drive him to the store for cigarettes. Tim comes back in car with cash in pocket. The police arrest them both for robbery. Is Joe liable for Aiding?
NO –> according to R v Roach, driver didn’t KNOW/INTEND for Tim to commit an offence. Actus Reus was established (assisting him physically), but NO Mens Rea as there’s NO knowledge.
Anna tells her boyfriend, Ben, that she’s going to walk through a bad neighbourhood to buy drugs. Ben drives her there to ensure her safety, but does nothing else. Would Anna be liable for a less serious charge of possession, while Ben would be liable for the more serious charge of Aiding trafficking?
Use R v Greyeyes as guidance - need MORE than just incidental assistance for trafficking. This I think would be incidental.
R v Hamilton?
Facts: Accused helped send emails/advertise a credit card number generate, and attached in the files were bomb recipes/tips for committing burglaries. Accused denied having read these documents.
Importance: Establishes Actus Reus for Counselling –> deliberate encouragement/active inducement, not just describing. Establishes Mens Rea for Counselling –> a heightened form of Recklessness can apply.
Why do we criminalize secondary liability?
Because it increases the chance of a harmful act occurring, and harms the sense of living in a peaceful and safe society (R v Hamilton).
What is the additional Mens Rea requirement for Parties to Homicide?
Subjective Mens Rea –> proving that party aiding or abetting had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE or was WILLFULLY BLIND that the Principal intended to commit murder & aided/abetted for that purpose. Desire doesn’t matter.
R v Logan?
Facts: 2 men plan robbery. During, one shoots clerk. Trial judge told jury that must establish BARD that accused knew or OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN that someone would probably shoot with intention of killing.
Importance: Establishes that “ought to have known” is INOPERATIVE for partyship under ONLY murder, attempted murder, and theft because they’re stigmatic offences. (use in s.21(2) is basically like zombie words)
R v Briscoe? (General Overview)
Facts: Accuseds kidnapped, raped, and murdered girl. Accused drove there, told girl to be quiet, and watched.
Importance: Establishes that Willful Blindness CAN be a substitute for True Knowledge for the Mens Rea of Aiding. Asking –> “did the accused shut his eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with knowledge?”
