PARTIES - secondary liability gen and MR Flashcards
secondary parties
secondary parties are just as guilty as principal parties and are subject to the same penalty, although usaually are given lesser sentences
secondary participation can be divided into 3
- aiding (1)(b)
- abetting, incting, councelling (1)(c)-(d)
- procurring
THESE ARE TEH ARs
secondary laibilty must occur
Before or at the same time as the main offender commits the crime.
in the exam pick
the mosT FITITNG form of seondary participation to asses not all
MR
a secondary party must
- know of the principal parties intended actions
- intend to aid/abt/incite/councel/procure them in such actions
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of essential matters
- knowledge of the type of offence
- wilfull blindness
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of essential matters
2ndary party must know the essential matters taht constittue the principal offnec but they do not need to know the facts amount to an offence
this does not require they know specific details of how the offence will be committed (BAINBRIDGE)
IN RELATION TO -
- knowledge of essential matter
section 70(1) confirms…
the bainbridge principle applies to all forms of secondary liabilty under 66 1
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of the type of offence
the secondary party doesnt need to know what specific offense is intended by the principle party , knowing the nature/charceter/kind is sufficient, suspiscison sometjhing is illegal
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of the type of offence
baker descibes it as
the facts fall one step short of being the actual crime contemplated by D
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of the type of offence
NOTE IN R V HARTLEY
a 2ndary party who contemplates an assualt by kicking and punching may not be guilty of maslaughter if death results from the use of a weapon by the priciple party that they were unaware of, diffenrt to what they thought they were assisting
what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty
- knowledge of the type of offence
NOTE IN R v Kimura
simple bulglary and aggrivated burglary are not the same type of offence due to the introduction of deadly weapons and the increase of sentecning from 10 to 14
what is the maxwell test
arise if a seondary party knows the principal party is likely to commit one or more of a range of offences but is unsure which sepcific one
idea of the range of offence could be
tip for what to consider for the maxwell test
consider whether the test blurs the lines between knowledge and recklessness as courts are cautious not to over step this boundary
intention
act or ommission must be intentional AND must intend to aid/abt/incite/councel/procure the principal party commit the offence
omission for secondary liabilty
An omission doesn’t always need intent for secondary liability. If someone fails to act when they have a legal duty to do so, and their omission satisfies the actus reus (AR) for secondary liability, they can be liable without needing to prove intent to aid, abet, incite, counsel, or procure the offence.
how does wentworth see aid/abt/incite/councel/procure
two circumstances
- The secondary party knowingly does something that will likely lead to the offence, even if they don’t want the offence itself (oblique intent).
- The secondary party acts deliberately to cause the offence as their intended outcome (direct intent)
intention and coercion/fear
In R v Pene, the court ruled that if a person’s only reason for aiding is to avoid harm or out of fear, they cannot be held secondarily liable.
who and what why when how opposed wentworth LOL
Heta v Police rejected as court emphasized oblique intent (virtual certainty) in believing that their actions would assist in committing the offence, regardless of any fear or coercion involved.
the approach in heta is widely accpeted meaning
that fear does NOT negate laibilty
