Multiple Offenders Flashcards
What is the statute governing accomplice liability (secondary participation)?
S.7 Criminal Law Act 1997
1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried, and punshed as a principal.
2) Assistance after the fact is an offence in of itself.
What is the mens rea for aiding or abetting?
DPP v Egan The accessory need not know the exact crime intended, only the nature of it.
DPP for NI v Maxwell all that needs to be proved is that the offence committed by the perpetrator was one contemplated by the accused.
DPP v Decker SC clarified law:
If an individual participates in an assault which they know is intended to cause serious injury and then death occurs they will be guilty of murder even if they did not realise murder was the principal’s intention.
If the principal is armed with a lethal weapon for an assault the accessory will be understood to have forseen that he intended to cause serious injury or kill the victim.
Principal and accessory may not have identical mens rea but still both be liable for murder.
What is the actus reus for aiding and abettings
R v Gianetto slightest encouragement or assistance is sufficient for liablity.
DPP v Jordan A person cannot be convicted of an offence merely by being present when it was committed, there must be some evidence of assitance or encouragement.
What is joint enterprise/ common design?
R v Anderson & Morris When two persons embark on a joint entrprise each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of it, including liability for unintended consequences that arise from its execution.
The basis of liablity for a joint enterprise is what has been tactically agreed. If one co adventurer goes beyond the scope of this then his co adventurer is not liable for the consequences of the unauthorised act.
What is the agreement approach for joint enterprise/ common design?
DPP v Eccles The accused had agreed resistance from the guard would be overcome with firearms, this formed part of the common design and all were liable for offences arising from their use.
DPP v Cumberton One party shot the victim when they had only agreed to give him a ‘good hiding’. What is contemplated by one person but not communicated to the other is irrelevent. No agreement without communication.
What case went beyond the agreement approach for joint enterprises?
DPP v Doohan The accused hired a hitman to cause serious injury to the victim, the agreement as to serious injury was sufficient mens rea for murder. That the hitman used a gun even though they has not expressly agreed to did not go beyond what had been tacitly, as the method of causing serious injury was left open to the hitman.
DPP Cummins & Davy COA discussed both approaches and did not favour one over the other.
How can an alleged accesory or party to a common design withdraw?
R v Gauthier
1) Intention to withdraw,
2) Communication of intention to withdraw in a timely manner,
3) Taking of reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence or at least negate your participation.
What is a conspiracy to commit a crime?
R v Parnell An Agreement between two people or more to commit a wrongful act (usually a crime) with a view to injuring another person.
R v Anderson The accused must have intended to enter into such an agreement and intended to play some part in its execution.
AG v Sullivan Attempt case, but cross applies that abandonment will not be a defence.
