Modes of Participation in Crime Flashcards
Definition: Principal
Person whose actions are the most direct and immediate cause of the AR
Abbot v R
Principals and Joint Principals
D helped hold down victim as she was stabbed, and then buried her while she was still alive
Was held that merely holding her down was acting as a secondary party, but his joining in with the burial was an act of principal
Kennedy (No 2)
Principals and Joint Principals
Any subsequent action by a human being may break the chain of causation:
D is not to be treated as causing V to act if V makes a voluntary and informed decision to act in that way over another
Macklin and Murphy’s case
Principals and Joint Principals: Jointly Causing
Were joint principles where V died from a combination of different injuries
Gnango (Principals and joint principals: Jointly Causing)
Agreement between P and D to ‘shoot or be shot at’, P shot first, in the subsequent exchange of fire P accidentally killed V
D was held guilty of the murder of V EITHER as a secondary party or principal
Principals and Joint Principals: Innocent Agents exception
There is an exception where the most immediate cause of the AR is a non-responsible human being
Non-Responsible: No MR, have a defence e.g insanity
Principal offender will then become the participant in the crime whose act is the most immediate cause of the act of the innocent agent
Michael
Principals and Joint Principals: Innocent Agents
D gave childminder bottle for baby which she had filled with poison, childminder’s 5 year of child ended up giving it to the baby
Held that D was the principal, as had acted through the agency of the innocent child
Had the childminder given the bottle, would have also been innocent as she had no mens rea
Cogan and Leake
Watkins [2010]
L set up C to rape V, C lacked MR because he believed the vicim was consenting, but L knew the victim was not
L was convicted as the principal
Harder to label L as raping V in this case?
Doctrine still applied as L had caused the rape
Pointed out that this case could now be better looked at under liability for ‘assisting and encouraging’ under the Serious Crime Act 2007
Key Provision: liability of secondary parties
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Anyone Aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring the commission of an indictable offence is liable to be tried and punished as the principle offender
Parallel provision for summary offences: Magistrates Courts Act 1980 s.44
Maxwell v DPP for NI (HL)
D secondary party to bombing incident, indicted as principal, part he played was helping the car containing the bombers get to the target.
A hardship that can arise from these cases is that it may not be clear to the D what he is actually being charged with!
Viscount Dillhorne: It should be made clear by the prosecutor if aiding and abetting is part of the charge (should also be clear where the case it put on a Montague either-or footing)
Montague
A group of people were charged with being in possession of articles for fraud
Where it is unclear whether the D’s role was that of a principal or a secondary, the issue can be left on an alternative basis if the prosecution can assert that if the D is not liable to be convicted on one basis (e.g as principal) he must be liable on the other (secondary)
Stringer (Secondary Parties: Actus Reus)
Secondary Parties: The Actus Reus
- Aiding/abetting/councilling cases can be regarded together, but some special case law has grown around procuring
- Both assistance and encouragement can flow from acts done in advance by D, all that is needed is some connection at the time of the offence
- There is no significance in the fact that D was or was not present at the time P commits the crime
- It will become a question of fact for the jury whether D’s actions amount to assistance or encouragement. Judge may only step in if no jury could possibly reach a conclusion
A-G v Able
Secondary Parties: The Actus Reus
Either aiding or abetting can suffice.
This can occur either before or at the time of the event
L v CPS
Secondary Parties: The Actus Reus
Judges involvement in the question of whether there has been aiding or abetting should be used at the very margins
Secondary parties: Clear cases of aiding/ abetting
- D provides P with the means to commit the offence
- D actively encourages/ advises P beforehand, or at the scene
- D acts as a lookout during the offence by prior agreement, or drives P to the scene
Secondary parties: Tricky cases for aiding and abetting
- Mere Presence
- Sale/Supply of an ordinary marketable commodity for use in crime
- Does there have to be a meeting of minds?
- Where P could have committed the offence even without D’s assistance/ encouragement
Coney
Secondary parties: Mere Presence
Are the audience secondary parties at an unlawful boxing match?
CA: The audience is essential for the fight, therefore non accidental presence is evidence of encouragement, but not conclusive in itself
Clarkson
Secondary parties: Mere Presence
D came across rape being committed, stayed to watch
Held this was encouragement even though their presence was accidental as they stayed with intent of encouraging the rape
Gnango (Secondary parties: mere presence)
Where 2 people decide on a fight, can be said that they are encouraging one another
NCB v Gamble (Secondary Parties: AR)
Secondary Parties: Sale/ supply of an ordinary marketable commodity for use in crime
Devlin: all sales for a known criminal purpose are acts of assisting
Distinction to be drawn between where D knows before the transaction, and where he only finds out after the sale, but before the delivery
Delivery: property has already passed to P, so delivery would merely be refraining from a tort
Lomas
Secondary Parties: Sale/ supply of an ordinary marketable commodity for use in crime
Where D returns a tool to P which is then used for a criminal purpose, this is not assisting as the tool already belongs to P
Glainville Williams
Secondary Parties: Sale/ supply of an ordinary marketable commodity for use in crime
argued for an alternate distinction between things that are dangerous and things that are ordinary- not the law at the moment however
Stringer (Secondary Parties: Meeting of Minds)
Differs according to whether assistance or encouragement is provided:
Assistance need not necessarily involve communication- therefore no meeting of minds needed
Encouragement by its very nature involves some sort of transmission between D and P- therefore will require meeting of minds
Calhaem
Secondary Parties: Where P could have committed the offence even without D’s assistance/ encouragement?
D hired P to kill V, but P then claimed the reason he killed V was provocation
Held: There is no rule that encouraging must cause the offence, just has to be some connection