Multiple party crimes Flashcards
What is joint enterprise in criminal law?
Joint enterprise is a legal doctrine that allows multiple defendants to be charged with the same criminal offense, even if only one of them committed the actual actus reus (criminal act).
Case Reference: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
This case involved a review of the legal doctrine of joint enterprise, which had been applied in English criminal law for many years. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine had been applied too broadly, and that it was not appropriate to hold all parties involved in a crime equally responsible unless they had shared the same intention to commit the offense.
What is the principle of common purpose in criminal law?
Common purpose is a legal principle that allows all parties involved in a criminal act to be held liable, even if they did not commit the act themselves, as long as they shared a common intention to commit the crime.
Case Reference: R v Gnango [2011] The Supreme Court ruled that even if the defendant did not intend to commit the criminal act themselves, they could still be held liable if they had a common understanding of what was going to happen.
What is the difference between joint enterprise and common purpose in criminal law?
Joint enterprise requires proof that all parties involved in the crime had a shared intention to commit the offense, while common purpose only requires proof that they had a common understanding of what was going to happen.
What is the rule of transferred malice in criminal law?
The rule of transferred malice is a legal principle that allows a defendant to be held liable for a criminal offense even if they did not intend to harm the actual victim, as long as they intended to commit the criminal act against someone else.
Case Reference: R v Pembliton (1874) This case established the principle of transferred malice
What is the principle of vicarious liability in criminal law?
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds a person or organization responsible for the actions of another person, even if they did not commit the act themselves, because of their relationship to the perpetrator (such as employer-employee relationship).
Case Reference: R v Kray [1969] This case dealt with vicarious liability, which is when one person or organisation is held responsible for the actions of another person. In this case, the Kray brothers were held responsible for the actions of their associates who committed a crime, because they had a close relationship with them and had given them instructions.
What is the principle of conspiracy in criminal law?
Conspiracy is a legal principle that allows a group of people to be charged with a criminal offense if they agree to commit the crime and take steps to carry it out, even if the crime never actually occurs.
Case Reference: R v Clarkson [1971] In this case, the defendants had planned to steal cars and had taken steps towards that goal, but had not actually committed the crime. They were still found guilty of conspiracy.
Principal offender
The principal is the main perpetrator of the offence. He is the one who commits the actus reus. It is possible to have more than one principal if more than one person is directly responsible for the actus reus.
What happens where it appears that a second person is not directly responsible for the actus reus but had a part to play in the commission of the offence?
They will be liable as a secondary party
What happens if the secondary party adopts a supporting role rather than participating in the actus reus by their own independent act?
They would likely be charged as an accessory
Innocent agents + 2 case example
An innocent agent is someone who is used as a tool or unwittingly involved in the commission of a crime by another person, without knowledge of the criminal purpose. The actions of an innocent agent are not usually attributed to the person who uses them for criminal purposes.
R v Sharp [1987] QB 853
Explanation: In this case, the defendant was convicted of handling stolen goods after he purchased a car that had been stolen by a third party. The defendant argued that he did not know that the car was stolen and had purchased it from an innocent agent who was unaware of its provenance. The court held that the innocent agent’s actions could not be attributed to the defendant, and he was therefore not guilty of handling stolen goods.
R v Cogan; R v Leak (1976) where L forced his wife to have sex with C. C’s rape conviction was quashed on the basis that he honestly believed that L’s wife was consenting, while L’s conviction was upheld. L caused the rape to happen even though he was not a direct participant in the actus reus.
What is said in the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s.8?
“Whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure… shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.”
