Parties to a crime Flashcards
Quick Q:
Two sisters are drinking at a bar, and they particularly like the cocktail glasses they are drinking from. Despite knowing that the cocktail glasses belong to the bar, they discuss whether they should put them in the handbag of the younger sister to take them home and keep them. Although they both initially agree that the younger sister should put them in her bag, the older sister then says to the younger sister that she does not feel comfortable about the plan, but tells the younger sister that she should feel free to do whatever she wants. When they get home, the older sister discovers that the younger sister has brought the two glasses home, and they both keep a glass each.
Which of the following descriptions best represents the older sister’s criminal liability in this situation?
Although the older sister has said to the younger sister that she should feel free to do whatever she wants, she will be an accomplice to the theft as the offence was within her contemplation when she encouraged her younger sister to take the glass.
Option D is the correct option because the older sister initially encouraged her sister by agreeing with her that she should take the glasses (counselling). At that time she had the elements of theft within her contemplation.
Option A is wrong because, by the time the older sister had said she was not comfortable with the plan, she had already abetted and counselled her younger sister.
Option B is wrong because the appropriation aspect of the theft took place once the glasses were picked up by the younger sister, not when they got home and kept them.
Option C is wrong because mere presence does not create accomplice liability.
Option E is wrong because, whilst someone who takes reasonable steps to withdraw from the plan will avoid liability as an accomplice, the steps the sister took were not sufficient by simply saying she was no longer going to go ahead with it.
Quick Q:
A father works as a sports coach. He has been accused of sexual assault by one of the boys in his athletics club and he wants to get revenge by seriously injuring the boy. He takes a starter pistol to the track and hands it to his daughter, who is also an athlete in the club. She agrees to fire the pistol at the boy to frighten him into withdrawing his complaint. The daughter is aware that the pistol is used to start running races but, unknown to her, the pistol has been adapted by her father to fire real bullets.
The daughter walks towards the boy holding out the gun. Terrified, the boy begins to run away but, as he does so, the daughter fires the gun and shoots the boy in the back. He dies immediately from his injuries.
Which of the following best describes the criminal liability of the father and his daughter?
The daughter is guilty as a principal offender to unlawful act manslaughter; and the father is an accomplice to murder.
The correct answer is option C. The daughter is the principal offender and is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter as she caused the boy to apprehend the infliction of unlawful force (he ran away ‘terrified’) by firing at him. She also intended to do so as her aim was to frighten the boy into withdrawing his complaint against her father. Firing a pistol at a person is objectively dangerous and caused the boy’s death. In contrast, the father is an accomplice to murder. He commits the actus reus by aiding the offence (he gives his daughter the pistol) and procuring it. His act is deliberate and thus he satisfies the first limb of the mens rea. With regards to the second limb, the principal offender (the daughter) does the agreed act but with a different mens rea to that intended by the accomplice. In this instance, the accomplice has a higher mens rea as he intends to kill the boy whilst his daughter only intends to frighten him. The father is liable as an accomplice to the offence which matches his own mens rea, namely murder - R v Gilmour [2000] / R v Howe [1987].
Options A and B are wrong because the daughter is the principal offender, and her father is the accomplice.
Option D is wrong because, although the daughter is a principal offender, the relevant offence is not murder. It is, however, correct that the father is an accomplice to murder.
Option E is wrong because the daughter is not a principal offender to gross negligence manslaughter (she does not owe a duty of care to the boy) and the father is an accomplice to murder and not unlawful act manslaughter.
Quick Q:
A defendant enters a local bar. When she enters, she notices two other customers sitting at a table near a bar. She notices that one of them is handing over a small bag of white powder to the other and cash is handed back in return. The defendant is a member of a group who are petitioning for drug use to be made legal. She notices the police enter the bar and begins chatting to the officer about knife crime in bars to distract the officers from what is happening at the nearby table. Upon noticing what the defendant is doing, the two other customers get up and leave the bar quickly to avoid being caught by the police.
Which of the following is the best answer as to whether or not the defendant has committed an offence?
The defendant has committed an offence because she has aided the supplying customer to commit the offence of supplying illegal drugs. The customers here were aware of what the defendant was doing to assist but this is not essential to proving the offence in these circumstances.
Option C is correct. Whilst the defendant is not a typical accomplice, she aids the supplying customer by enabling them to commit the offence of supplying illegal drugs. There was no prior discussion between the parties but the customers became aware of the defendant’s assistance. If the basis of the charge is that the accomplice aided the principal, it is possible for such assistance to be given even if the principal is entirely unaware of the help given.
Option A is wrong. The defendant has committed an offence as an accomplice as detailed above.
Option B is wrong because the defendant is not an innocent bystander on these facts.
Option D is wrong because as referred to above, it is not strictly necessary that the principal be aware of the assistance being given.
Option E is wrong for the reasons already outlined.
Quick Q:
A solicitor is instructed by a client who has been arrested and awaits interview at the police station. The solicitor speaks to the investigating officer who tells him that his client is an accomplice not a principal offender. The solicitor wishes to explain this alleged role to the client.
Which of the following is the best description of an accomplice?
An accomplice aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an offence.
Option C is the best answer as it includes all the ways in which an accomplice can assist with the commission of an offence.
Options B & D are not the best answers as they contain some but not all the ways an accomplice can assist with the commission of an offence.
Options A & E are not the best answers as they include interchangeable terms for accomplice without explaining what an accomplice is.
Parties to a crime:
Principal and accessory
- The principal (P) is the person who,
with appropriate mens rea, commits the
actus reus of the offence. Innocent
agents can be guilty of an offence as
principal even if another person
commits the actus reus e.g. children
under the age of criminal responsibility. - Secondary participation- an accessory
(A) aids, abets, counsels, procures the
principal offence. Alternatively, A is
engaged in a joint enterprise when P
commits a second, different offence
e.g. P and D commit burglary as
principals, P murders the homeowner,
D becomes an accessory to P’s
murder.
Other key principles regarding accessorial
liability covered in this element were:
* Withdrawal- something must be done
and in the case of pre-planned (but not
necessarily spontaneous) violence,
communicated to the principal or a law
enforcement agency.
* Conviction of a secondary party and
acquittal of the principal is possible.
* If it can be proved that the person who
did not commit the crime as the
principal was a secondary party to the
crime, then both can be convicted.
* It is not an offence to attempt to aid,
abet, counsel or procure an offence.
* It is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or
procure an attempt to commit an
offence.
Secondary Parties: ** key to learn
Those who:
1. Aid
2. Abet
3. Counsel
4. Procure
5. be a party to a joint enterprise.
Aided: Helped in a practical way or offered support and assistance
Abetted: Encouraged or assisted in the commission of the offence
Counselled: Formally advised in relation to the commission of the offence
Procured: Persuaded or caused someone to commit the offence
While similar, counseling and procuring are different kinds of activity. Counseling refers to encouraging, soliciting, or giving useful information to the person committing the crime. Procuring, however, refers to assisting in getting the resources or creating the environment for another to commit the crime.
abetting requires encouragement at the time of the offence and the woman assisted the crime before it took place.
Accessorial liability acts and mens reus
Actus reus
Any of the following five ways:
* To aid P in committing the offence
* To abet P in committing the offence
* To counsel P in committing the offence
* To procure P to commit the offence
* To be a party to a joint enterprise with P
regarding one offence and during the
enterprise P commits a second,
different offence
Mens rea
* An intention to assist or encourage the
principal’s conduct.
* If the crime requires a mens rea, an
intention that the principal will do the
actus reus with that mens rea.
(Procuring would appear to be an
exception to this rule.)
* Knowledge of existing facts or
circumstances necessary
Quick Q:
A woman and her husband have a long-standing feud with their neighbour. The woman is fed up of his constant complaints about the behaviour of her children. One day, she receives a visit from a social worker and is furious to discover that the neighbour has reported her to the local Social Services department. The woman decides that she will “give him something to complain about!”
The woman discusses what to do with her husband and they agree to cause the neighbour some bodily harm by punching him. The next evening, they see the neighbour getting into his car and the woman and her husband march round to confront him. An argument ensues and, while the woman acts as a lookout checking no-one is around, her husband punches the neighbour in the face as planned. However, during the assault, the husband suddenly produces a hammer and deliberately and repeatedly hits the neighbour on the head, killing him. The woman is horrified as she had no idea that her husband would do any more than they had agreed and did not want the neighbour to die.
Which of the following correctly describes the woman and her husband’s criminal liability?
The husband is guilty of murder and the woman is an accomplice to manslaughter.
The correct answer is option B. The husband is guilty of murder as he unlawfully kills the neighbour and did so intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (evidenced by the repeated hitting with the hammer). However, the woman is not an accomplice to murder because she only foresaw some bodily harm and did not intend to encourage or assist her husband in committing the ‘new’ offence of murder. She is an accomplice to the offence which matches her own mens rea, namely unlawful act manslaughter.
Option A is wrong because the woman is not an accomplice to murder as she clearly does not intend to assist or encourage her husband to kill the neighbour with the necessary mens rea for murder.
Option C is wrong because the woman does not escape all liability for the death. Options D and E are both wrong because the man satisfies the actus reus and mens rea of murder and this is the appropriate offence for which he should be liable rather than manslaughter.
A man asks a woman if he can borrow her car. He tells her that the car will be used as the getaway vehicle for a burglary of a domestic property that evening. The woman asks whether the man can find an alternative vehicle and only agrees reluctantly when he says not. However, on approaching the house, it becomes apparent that the property is occupied. The man drives away and then uses the car in a burglary of an office premises the following day.
Is the woman liable as an accomplice to burglary?
A-Yes, because the woman aided the offence, intended to do the act that assisted the offence and had knowledge that a burglary would be committed.
B-Yes, because the woman abetted the offence and had knowledge of the circumstances as she was aware that a burglary was to be committed.
C-No, because she only lent the car reluctantly and wanted the man to find an alternative vehicle.
D-No, because she was unaware of the burglary at the office premises and believed the car would be used in the burglary of a domestic property.
E-No, because although the woman satisfied the actus reus, she did not know the exact details of the crime that was to be committed.
The correct answer is option A. The woman aided the crime as she assisted by providing a car before the offence took place. She intended to do the act (it was deliberate) and had knowledge of the circumstances as she was aware of sufficient of the facts to know a crime would be committed. Even though the woman does not have the mens rea for the actual crime of burgling the office premises on the following day, she is criminally liable as this is the same type of offence as burgling a domestic property that same day, of which she did have knowledge.
Option B is wrong as abetting requires encouragement at the time of the offence and the woman assisted the crime before it took place.
Option C is wrong because it does not matter whether the woman lent the car reluctantly provided the act was intentional, which it was. Option D is wrong as accomplice liability only requires the defendant to know enough of the circumstances that make the conduct criminal, not necessarily the exact address of the burglary. Option E is wrong as it is irrelevant the woman did not know the exact details of the crime as long as the crime was of the same type as that committed and here, it was.
Quick Q:
Two climate activists plan to graffiti the wall of an oil company. One of the activitists, a woman, is nervous. The other activist, a man, reassures her that the plan is to spray their message and then immediately leave. The man tells her not to worry because he has a knife. The woman knows that the man has a reputation for violence but does not ask any further questions.
Their spray-painting is interrupted by a security guard. The activists run but he catches up with them and there is a struggle. The security guard headbutts the man. The man then pulls out his knife and stabs the guard 5 times in the chest. The woman is shocked and both of them flee. The security guard later dies from his injuries.
Which of the following best describes the woman’s potential liability as an accomplice to murder?
The woman may be liable but it would be up to a jury to decide whether she had sufficient knowledge of the circumstances and an intention to commit the offence.
Option D is correct because to be guilty as an accomplice to murder the woman must intend to encourage the offender and the woman must have knowledge of the circumstances, namely the facts that make the man’s conduct criminal. This is satisfied if the woman intended the primary offender to commit the specific crime. The man goes beyond the scope of the plan, and the woman must intend to assist or encourage the man in the “new offence”, namely murder. Foresight of what the man might do is evidence of intention but no more as per R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8. Therefore, it is not sufficient that the woman had foresight that the man may commit murder, she must have intended him to commit the crime. It is therefore a question for the jury to answer on the specific facts. Here, she knows he is violent and she doesn’t ask him any more questions. But also, she is worried about what might happen, and he has reassured her that they are there to spray the walls and nothing more. Therefore, it would be up to the jury to determine.
Option A is wrong because she could have encouraged him by being present and being involved in the scuffle. Although mere presence at the scene is not enough as per R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402, if it can be shown that the woman was there by prior arrangement or that the woman actively encouraged the principle, then liability could be established.
Option B is wrong because mere presence at the scene is not enough to establish accomplice liability as per R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402.
Option C is wrong because as per R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8, foresight is not enough to establish intention in itself, a jury may infer an intention from foresight, but they are not synonymous.
Option E is wrong because although she has the mens rea for criminal damage, she may also have the mens rea for murder if she had an intention to encourage the man in the commission of the offence and knowledge of the circumstances of the offence. Therefore although the woman is liable for the crime of criminal damage, she may also be liable as an accomplice to murder.
Quick Q:
The head teacher of a school is desperate to raise funds for the school. She asks an engineer to write a report saying that extensive work is needed to the school wall to make it safe. The head teacher and the engineer both know there is no problem with the wall. The engineer knows that the head teacher plans to submit the false report to the company that insures the school premises and that she hopes to use the insurance money to fix the school roof. The engineer writes the report as requested.
The insurance company rejects the claim saying the engineer’s report is false.
The head teacher is charged with an offence of fraud and pleads guilty.
When questioned by the police, the engineer says he had hoped the head teacher would not go ahead with the claim.
Which of the following statements best describes the engineer’s potential liability as an accomplice to this offence of fraud?
The engineer is guilty of being an accomplice to fraud because he helped the head teacher by intentionally writing the report, knowing what the head teacher planned to do with it.
The correct option is E because it describes both the actus reus and mens rea elements of accomplice liability. He aided the head teacher (AR) by writing the report and intended to do the act (of writing the report) with knowledge of what the head teacher planned to do (commit an offence of fraud).
A is not the best option as he did not procure the offence.
B is not the best option as he did not counsel the commission of the offence.
C is not the best option because the prosecution has to also prove he intended to do the act that assisted.
D is not the best option because the prosecution also has to prove that he knew the circumstances of the offence.
