Parties to a crime

Question 1

What is a principal offender, and will there only ever be one?

Answer 1

• Principal offender = person who commits the AR of the offence with the appropriate MR
• Can have more than one principal e.g. two people break into house together and both have intention to steal

Question 2

What is the difference between a principal offender and secondary party?

Answer 2

• Principal offender = person who commits AR of offence with appropriate MR (can have more than one)
• Secondary party = those who aid, abet, counsel, procure, or be party to joint enterprise

Question 3

What is an innocent agent and what is the effect

Answer 3

A person can be guilty of an offence as a principal even if another person (the innocent agent) actually performs the AR - e.g. woman gave child a dose of poison to give to victim = woman was principal offender

Stringer - employer told employees to make accounting transactions which resulted in fraudulent transactions unknown to employees = employer was principal and employees were innocent agents

Question 4

What are the 5 ways in which someone can be liable as an accessory (secondary party)?

Answer 4

1. To aid
2. To abet
3. To counsel
4. To procure
5. To be a party to a joint enterprise

‘Assisting or encouraging the commission of the principal’s offence’ (bar procuring)

Question 5

What is accessorial liability?
What liability is faced by an accessory?

Answer 5

• Accessorial liability = liability of secondary parties to criminal offences
• Liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender

E.g. boyfriend gives woman a knife and told the victim he was going to ‘get it’ - woman stabs and kill victim = both guilty of murder

Question 6

What is the AR and MR for accessorial liability?

Answer 6

AR = to do any of the 5 things
MR =
1. intention to assist or encourage principal’s conduct;
2. (if crime requires MR) an intention that principal will do AR with that MR;
3. knowledge of existing facts or circumstances necessary for offence to be criminal

Procuring is an exception to 2)

Question 7

What happens if a secondary party changes mind and wants to withdraw their help?

Answer 7

• Not sufficient to just have a change of mind
• Must do something - at very least withdrawal must be communicated to principal or law enforcement agency

Further acts may be required based on case

Rook - hired to kill man’s wife, recruited person that did kill her, did not actually turn up on day and just wanted money = he at least had to unequivocally communicate his intention to withdraw

Question 8

For an assistance, when must withdrawal take place and why?

Answer 8

Withdrawal must take place before act of assistance as MR is at the time of act of assistance and not when principal commits crime

• Something vastly more effective is needed for communication of withdrawal - potentially physically to intervene to stop attack

Becerra - B broke into house with C and G intending to steal, V ccame down to investigate noise and B said ‘come on let’s go’ and went through a window = would have had to do something way more

Question 9

When would withdrawal be needed for spontaneous violence (not pre-planned)?

Answer 9

Not needed; communication not necessary

Mitchell - three men left restaurant after fight, one returned to beat V and killed him (was not necessary for other two men to communicate)
* This might be confined to facts as the return was technically a new attack

Question 10

When will conviction of secondary party and acquittal of principal occur?

2 circumstances

Answer 10

• Principal acquitted due to insufficient evidence/cannot locate them
• Where principle has done AR with MR but has a defence (e.g. marital coercion)

As long as clear someone has committed offence to which D is 2ndary party, D can be convicted

Question 11

What is the general rule for if it cannot be proved which of the 2 people committed the crime? What if it can only be proved that 1 of them committed crime as secondary party?

Answer 11

• Cannot be proved which 2 people committed crim = both must be acquitted
• Can be proved 1 of the 2 people committed crime as secondary party = both can be convicted

Russell and Russell - parents convicted of manslaugher of 16 month old daughter - did not matter that it could not be proven which gave her lethal dose - as long as other had been there when it happened so abetted the offence

Question 12

Is it an offence to:
1. Attempt to aid, abet, counsel or procure offence
2. Aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt to commit and offence

Answer 12

1. Attempt to aid, abet, counsel or procure offence = no offence
2. Aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt to commit and offence = offence

Question 13

What is the AR to aid P in committing offence?

Answer 13

Giving help, support or assistance at time of offence e.g. giving information, driving, holding down victim in assault

Question 14

What is not needed for aiding a crime?

Answer 14

Consensus (e.g. can be unplanned) or causation (no need for but for assistance)

Question 15

Does it matter if there is a time delay between aiding and commission?

E.g. dropping off P in car, P murders 12 hours later

Answer 15

No, even if mind had not been fully made up

Question 16

Can you aid after the offence?

Answer 16

No - this would be a conviction as assisting an offender

Aiding will be by an acessory before the crime

Question 17

What is the AR to abet P in committing offence? What must the principal know?

Answer 17

Incite, instigate or encourage P at time of offence which must be communicated to P

Principal must know they are being abetted; must be communication

Abet = ‘I bet’ you can do that (encouragement)

Question 18

Can refraining from controlling someone amount to abetting?

I.e. can inactivity be abetting?

Answer 18

Yes - refraining from controlling actions of another can count as abetting if they have a right or duty to control them (e.g. parent, employer);

Presence at scene of crime not even necessary!

E.g. licensee of pub stands by and watches customers drinking after hours - aiding and abetting in doing so
E.g. husband who stands by and watches wife drown children

Question 19

What is enough for encouragement?

Answer 19

Mere encouragment is enough e.g. “oh goody” as a response to principal telling him he will kill his wife

Question 20

Is mere presence at the scene enough for the AR of abetting?

E.g. attendee at concert in London by artist who had been denied entry to UK

Answer 20

Not necessarily; mixed case law

Question 21

What is the AR to counsel P in committing offence?

Answer 21

Giving advice or encouragement before offence is committed; with a connection between advice and the crime (contact and consensus)

A council (counsel) of criminals discusses how they will commit the offence (before!)

Question 22

Is causation required for counselling the principal?

Answer 22

No - there may be many different counsellors; could even be ignored but counselled offence still committed

Question 23

What is the difference between abetting and counselling?

Answer 23

• Abetting = encouraging at time offence is being committed
• Counselling = encouraging before commission of offence

Question 24

What is the AR to procure P in committing offence?

Answer 24

To produce by endeavour - must be a causal link between D’s act and P’s commission of offence

I.e. secondary party’s actions cause offender to commit offence

Question 25

Is a consensus required to procure P’s endeavour?

Answer 25

No - can even be done without P’s knowledge or consent e.g. adding alcohol to drink to procure drink-driving offence

So also does not need reliance

Question 26

What is a joint enterprise and what is the effect?

Answer 26

Where two or more people commit a crime together - if they have the same intent (to break into house and steal) they will both be principal offenders and liable (for burglary)

Question 27

What happens if one of the parties goes on to commit a different crime?

The problem of accessorial liability: D1 and D2 have common intention to commit crime A. D1, as an incident of committing crime A, commits crime B
* …in the course of current crime, e.g. (previous example) in the course of the break in, one of the parties stabs and kills the home-owner

Answer 27

• In joint enterprise case = the accomplice was committing another offence with the principle at the time of the accessorial offence
• In simple case of aiding, abetting = accomplice is not committing an offence as principal

Question 28

Must D2 have aided or encouraged offence to be liable under accessorial liability?

Answer 28

No - is enough that D2 was a party to the joint enterprise and had the relevant MR for an accessory

Question 29

When must crime B be committed?

Answer 29

In the course of/incidental to crime A

E.g. D1 and D2 go to house to beat up man, on way home together D1 throws brick through window of house, D2 cannot be liable for this criminal damage (is not in the course of/incidental to crime)

Question 30

What is an overwhelming supervening event?

Answer 30

Where one party acts in a considrably more dangerous way than the other intends - ‘innocent’ party will not be liable for that speciifc offence (even if no withdrawal)

Question 31

Can a party be liable for any offences committed before they join the enterprise?

Answer 31

No

Question 32

What are the 3 parts of the MR for accessoral liability?

Answer 32

1. Intention to assist or encourage the principal’s conduct
2. If crime requires MR, an intention that principal will do the AR with that MR (exception of procuring)
3. Knowledge of existing facts and circumstances for the offence to be criminal

Question 33

What is meant by an intention to assist or encourage principal’s conduct? (2 parts)

1st part of MR

Answer 33

D must intend:
1. To do act which aids or encourages; and
2. That act to aid/encourage commission of crime

e.g. if D supplies P with gun which P uses to commit murder, it must be proved that D intended:
1. to give it to P rather than accidentally leaving it where P could pick up
2. P to use it to cause serious harm to someone

Question 34

Are oblique and conditional intent sufficient?

For intending to assist/encourage principal’s conduct

Answer 34

• Oblique is sufficient
• Conditional intent may be sufficient (e.g. D intends to give P means to commit crime, but remains unclear what P might do = D liable even if no further interest in whether P commits crime)

Lynch - taxi driver threatened with death unless he drove them to house of a police officer knowing they intended to murder him - he therefore attended to assist even though he was horrified by it - oblique intent

Question 35

Where crime requires MR, is a conditional intention that the principal will do AR with that MR enough?

2nd part of MR

E.g. D supplies P with gun to use in burglary and intends P to use it to cause serious harm only if disturbed in the burglary

Answer 35

Yes

E.g. D supplies P with gun to use in burglary and intends P to use it to cause serious harm only if disturbed in the burglary, then D intends for P to use the gun to cause serious harm (helpful for JE cases)

Question 36

What is required to establish conditional intent in a crime that requires MR?

Answer 36

Can be inferred from foresight, but need not be

• Suggested that the best guidance is to consider D’s attitude if P committed crime:
• If D is accepting/pleased = D has conditional intent
• If D is dismayed = jury cannot find conditional intention

Question 37

What happens where the MR does not correspond with the AR?

E.g. D might intend for P to do serious harm but if P does serious harm and V dies

Answer 37

D can be liable for greater harm

If D1 intends D2 to do serious harm to victim, D1 will be liable for murder when D2 injures victim with intent to do serious harm and V dies as a result - this will be despite the fact that D1 could not be said to have intended murder committed

Question 38

When will D know of existing facts and necessary circumstsances for the offence to be criminal? I.e. what is enough

3rd part of MR

Answer 38

• Wilful blindness - D who deliberately shuts eyes to the obvious will have knowledge
• D need not know exact details of crime which will be committed e.g. V’s identity, day of crime, number of crime known by D will be enough
• Enough to know that principal may commit any one of a number of crimes inc crime which principal does in fact commit

Need not know precise crime, just type of crime e.g. not that bank was going to be broken and entered and that money stolen, but must know that breaking and entering and stealing of property from those premises

Question 39

What happens to a D who has lesser intent?

Answer 39

Can be convicted of a lesser crime e.g. person is party to violent attack on another without intent to assist in causing serious harm/death - may not be guilty as accessory to murder but can be guilty for manslaughter

Question 40

Will ‘foresight of a possibility’ that the principal might commit the offence be enough of an MR for the secondary party?

Answer 40

No