Parties to a Crime Flashcards
What is the key terminology in relation to joint offending?
- The Principal Offender – the individual who carried out the AR
- Joint Principals – the individuals who carried out AR together
- Accomplice/Accessory/Secondary Party – different terms for same situation; those who don’t commit the AR themselves, but have a part to play in the commission of the offence
In general, what are the prerequisites/initial considerations before looking to establish accomplice liability?
1) Has the AR of a principal offence been committed?
- This must happen before we can look at accomplice liability
2) A can be liable where P isn’t if:
- P has a defence
- P cannot be found
3) A might be an innocent agent if P used them to commit an offence, but they lack MR
The AR and MR of accomplice liability are specific to this form of liability, so we don’t look at the elements of the principal offence itself
In overview only, what are the 4 ways the AR of accomplice liability can be fulfilled? What do they all jointly entail?
4 ways in which AR of accomplice liability can be carried out – only one needed – all involve the accomplice acting in some way, either before or at the time of the offence
- Aiding
- Abetting
- Counselling
- Procuring
What does ‘aiding’ involve?
Involves helping or assisting either before or at the time of the offence
- Giving information pre-crime to help commission
- Holding down V while principal assaults them
What does ‘abetting’ involve?
Involves encouragement at the time of the offence
- Specific words or gestures of encouragement
What does ‘counselling’ involve?
Involves instigating, encouraging the commission of an offence
Takes place before the crime is committed
What does ‘procuring’ involve?
Acting to bring about the commission of an offence
Takes place before the crime is committed
- Spiking someone’s drink before they drive home
What are some other noteworthy points about the AR generally?
Must do one of the four in relation to the commission of the principal offence
Getting involved after the crime is committed is not relevant to establishing accomplice liability
Presence at the scene of a crime alone is not enough to establish the AR of accomplice liability
- Look for relevant facts, such as if they agreed with D to be at the scene
Does there need to be a meeting of the minds between the accomplice and principal?
Does there need to be a meeting of minds between principal offender and accomplice? - can be described as a mental link between P and A
- Only needed if allegation is one of abetting or counselling
- No meeting of minds needed for aiding and procuring - Principal might not be aware of any assistance, but A will still be liable
Do any of the 4 ARs require a causal link?
Only time a causal link is needed, is for procurement
- Prosecution must show what A did led to commission of principal offence
What are the elements of the MR of accomplice liability?
2 elements
1) Accomplice intended to do the act or speak the words which assisted/encouraged or procured the offence
- Was A’s act done deliberately?
- Usually easy to show – ensure its not accidental
2) It must be shown that the accomplice knew of the relevant circumstances
- Did the accomplice know of ‘the essential matters that constitute the principal offence’ -They must know the facts which make P’s conduct criminal
2a) If A doesn’t have knowledge of the specific offence P intends to commit, MR can be established if:
- A knows type of crime but not the exact details
- A contemplates a limited range of offences and one of this limited range is carried out by P
Is it possible for the principal and accomplice can have different liabilities for the same offence?
Yes, in 2 different ways:
1) Where you have offences with a shared AR, P and A can be held liable for different offences
- For example, murder and manslaughter have the AR of V’s death being caused by P’s act
- Also, s18 and s20 OAPA have the shared AR that P has wounded or caused GBH to V
- In these cases, P could be convicted of murder and A of manslaughter or vice versa
2) Accomplice is guilty as an accomplice to the offence which matches their own MR
2a) If A hands a gun to P, telling them it is unloaded and to use it to frighten V, when it is loaded
- P does not have MR for murder (no intent to kill/cause GBH) - convicted of unlawful act manslaughter
- A, knowing the gun was loaded, intended to kill – convicted of murder
2b) P intends to cause GBH, and the accomplice only anticipates some harm to V
- P guilty of s18
- A guilty of s20
Where the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan, is the accomplice liable for the new offence?
1) If P and A intend to burgle a house, but P kills the homeowner, is A liable for new offence of murder/manslaughter?
- Accomplice only liable if they intended to assist or encourage P in the new offence
2) Where it is shown that A foresaw that P might act in this way, that is evidence from which the jury can infer intent, but no more
- If A realised P might kill a homeowner if disturbed in the burglary, this is evidence from which an intention to assist/encourage the new offence can be inferred, but they don’t have to infer it
Is it possible for the accomplice to avoid liability by withdrawing from the plan to commit an offence?
Yes - to avoid accomplice liability, there must be an effective withdrawal on the part of the accomplice
- This is a question of fact for the jury
What are the 2 key questions when deciding if there is an effective withdrawal?
1) When did the withdrawal occur?
- Before the offence occurs and withdrawing unequivocally can be enough
- May not be the case if A has given physical assistance before the event – may need more than words alone
- Usually not enough to communicate withdrawal during the offence
2) How was the withdrawal communicated?
- There must be timely and unequivocal communication of the change of heart by the accomplice to the principal
- Merely communicating a change of heart is often insufficient to be an effective withdrawal
If the accomplice has given assistance before or wishes to withdraw during the offence, what must they do?
If A has given assistance before or wants to withdraw during the commission of the offence, the court has indicated that something more is needed than simply telling P that they don’t want a part in this offence
- What the something more needs to be, will be dependent on the facts
- Could involve physical intervention, taking back a weapon, contacting police or warning V
If the AR of the principal offence has been committed, what does this mean for the accomplice?
Remember, if the AR of the principal offence has been committed, accomplice liability is unaffected by either the acquittal of P (due to a defence) or no prosecution of P
Give a summary of MR for accomplice liability
1st limb - A must intend to do the act/say the words
2nd limb - A must have knowledge of the circumstances
3) A must intend for principal to commit the specific offence. If not, A may also be an accomplice if:
3a) (i) A knows type of crime, but not exact details; or
3a) (ii) A knows offence will be in a limited range
3b) Ds start off together but P goes beyond scope of the plan
* A must intend to assist or encourage P in new offence
* Foresight of what P might do, is evidence of intent but no more
* A may be guilty as an accomplice of the new offence
3c) P does the agreed act but with a different MR to that intended by A
* A is guilty as an accomplice to the crime which matches their own MR
