Parties

Question 1

What is the difference between a principal offender & a secondary offender?

Answer 1

Principal offender is the person who physically commits the actus reus of a substantive criminal offence with the necessary MR
(if defendants equally involved, will be joint principals)

v.

Secondary offender (aka accomplice / accessory) in some way assists in the commission of an offence or inextricably involved in it - but not committing the AR of the offence themsleves
eg. acting as lookout or getaway driver

Question 2

What is the actus reus & mens rea of accomplice liability?

Answer 2

AR: Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the principal offence

MR:
1. Intention to commit the act or say the words which assisted / encouraged
2. Knowledge of the circumstances which make the principal offender’s conduct criminal

Question 3

What is the actus reus of accomplice liability?

Answer 3

(a) Aiding
Timing: Before &/or at time of offence

(b) Abetting (ie. encouraging or inciting)
Timing: At time of commission of the offence

(c) Counselling (ie. advising, encouraging)
Timing: Before commission of offence

(d) Procuring
Timing: Before &/or at time of offence

the commission of the principal offence

Question 4

For the actus reus of accomplice liability, which of aiding / abetting / counselling / procuring requires a causal link?

Answer 4

Procuring - must be causal link with offence

eg. spiking someone’s drink so they are caught drink-driving

Question 5

Which of aiding / abetting / counselling / procuring can be done at the time of the offence?

Answer 5

Abetting & aiding may occur during the offence

v. Aiding, counselling, procuring occur before the offence

Question 6

What is the mens rea for accomplice liability?

Answer 6

1. Intention to commit the act or say the words which assisted / encouraged

• Simply need to have deliberately spoken or acted in way that amounted to assistance / encouragement

2. Knowledge of the circumstances which make the principal offender’s conduct criminal

• Don’t need to know exact details of planned offence or precise circumstances
• Sufficient for D to have contemplated “real possibility” that principal might commit the relevant offence
• Assessed subjectively ie. what they actually foresaw, not what ought to have foreseen

Question 7

Can an accomplice be liable if the principal doesn’t end up committing an offence?

Answer 7

No

Question 8

If the accomplice doesn’t intend the principal offender to commit the specific crime, can they still be liable?

Answer 8

Yes if:

a. Know of type of crime but not exact details , or know offence will be within a limited range → guilty as accomplice to crime committed

b. Principal offender does agreed act with different MR to that intended by the accomplice → guilty as accomplice to the crime which matches A’s own MR *(eg. where A intends killing but PO only intends GBH)

c. Start off together but principal offender goes beyond scope of plan - A intends to assist or encourage in the new offence → may be guilty as accomplice to ‘new’ crime

Question 9

If there is a common plan, but a defendant then seeks to withdraw from it, can they escape liability for what the principal goes on to do?

Answer 9

Ultimately question of fact for jury to decide, but withdrawal must be effectively communicated

Before offence: words alone may suffice & must be timely + unequivocal

_ During offence_: words unlikely to be enough, some form of physical intervention (eg. getting PO to leave scene) may be required