PARTIES - secondary liability gen and MR

Question 1

secondary parties

Answer 1

secondary parties are just as guilty as principal parties and are subject to the same penalty, although usaually are given lesser sentences

Question 2

secondary participation can be divided into 3

Answer 2

1. aiding (1)(b)
2. abetting, incting, councelling (1)(c)-(d)
3. procurring

THESE ARE TEH ARs

Question 3

secondary laibilty must occur

Answer 3

Before or at the same time as the main offender commits the crime.

Question 4

in the exam pick

Answer 4

the mosT FITITNG form of seondary participation to asses not all

Question 5

MR

a secondary party must

Answer 5

• know of the principal parties intended actions
• intend to aid/abt/incite/councel/procure them in such actions

Question 6

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

Answer 6

1. knowledge of essential matters
2. knowledge of the type of offence
3. wilfull blindness

Question 7

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

1. knowledge of essential matters

Answer 7

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)

Question 8

IN RELATION TO -

1. knowledge of essential matter

section 70(1) confirms…

Answer 8

the bainbridge principle applies to all forms of secondary liabilty under 66 1

Question 9

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

2. knowledge of the type of offence

Answer 9

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

Question 10

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

2. knowledge of the type of offence

baker descibes it as

Answer 10

the facts fall one step short of being the actual crime contemplated by D

Question 11

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

2. knowledge of the type of offence

NOTE IN R V HARTLEY

Answer 11

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

Question 12

what are the three types of knowledge or secondary liabilty

2. knowledge of the type of offence

NOTE IN R v Kimura

Answer 12

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

Question 13

what is the maxwell test

Answer 13

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

Question 14

tip for what to consider for the maxwell test

Answer 14

consider whether the test blurs the lines between knowledge and recklessness as courts are cautious not to over step this boundary

Question 15

intention

Answer 15

act or ommission must be intentional AND must intend to aid/abt/incite/councel/procure the principal party commit the offence

Question 16

omission for secondary liabilty

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

how does wentworth see aid/abt/incite/councel/procure

two circumstances

Answer 17

1. The secondary party knowingly does something that will likely lead to the offence, even if they don’t want the offence itself (oblique intent).
2. The secondary party acts deliberately to cause the offence as their intended outcome (direct intent)

Question 18

intention and coercion/fear

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

who and what why when how opposed wentworth LOL

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

the approach in heta is widely accpeted meaning

Answer 20

that fear does NOT negate laibilty