Offence Evolution - case law

Question 1

Conspires

Answer 1

Mulcahy v R (1868)
“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself….”

Question 2

Attempts

Answer 2

R v Harpur [2010]

“In assessing the conduct there must be a full evaluation in terms of time, place, and circumstance”. What remains to be done is always relevant, but not determinative. The Court is permitted to focus more on the quality of the defendant’s acts and the time, place and circumstances in which they occurred, and less on abstract tests of preparation and proximity.

Question 3

Parties

Answer 3

R v Betts and Ridley (1930)
An offence where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender in carrying out the common aim uses violence, a secondary offender taking no physical part in it would not be held liable for the violence used.

Question 4

Accessory after the fact

Answer 4

R v Mane (1989)

To be considered an accessory the acts done by the person must be after the completion of the offence.

Question 5

Knowledge (accessory)

Answer 5

R v Crooks [1981]
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.

Question 6

Wilful blindness

Answer 6

R v Briggs (17/03/09)
As with a receiving charge under s246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making enquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.