Parties to a Crime Flashcards
What is the legal definition of complicity under Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?
A person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any indictable offence is liable as a principal offender
What is the difference between a principal and an accomplice?
A principal commits both the actus reus and mens rea of a crime; an accomplice assists or encourages but does not carry out the actus reus
In R v Michael (1840), why was the mother held liable despite not administering poison herself?
She was a principal through innocent agency, using someone without mens rea (a child) to commit the act
Can an accomplice be convicted even if the principal is unidentified or uncharged?
Yes, as held in R v Nango (2018)
What are the four types of actus reus for complicity?
Aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring
What did R v Bryce (2004) establish about aiding?
Minimal assistance can amount to aiding if it plays a real role in the crime
Can mere presence at a crime scene amount to encouragement?
No, as confirmed in R v Clarkson (1971)—there must be intentional encouragement
What was the ruling in Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) regarding procuring?
Procuring requires causation but not the principal’s knowledge
What mens rea must an accomplice have to be liable?
The intention to assist or encourage the offence and knowledge of the essential elements of the crime
What did the Supreme Court decide in R v Jogee (2016) about foresight?
Mere foresight is not sufficient; there must be intent to assist or encourage the crime
Can A be liable if P lacks mens rea?
Yes, if A has mens rea, such as when A deceives P into committing a crime thinking it is harmless
In R v Bourne (1952), why was A liable even though P acted under duress?
Because an accomplice can be liable even if the principal has a legal defence
