Parties to Crime Flashcards
Where can the quote for parties to crime be found?
Accessiores and Abettors Act 1861 s8
amended by Criminal Law Act 1977
s44 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 has a similar provision for summary offences
R v Gnago
Facts: D + P involved in a shootout P’s shot missed and killed an innocent bystander, D was charged with murder through doctrine of complicity
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: -D was liable because he assisted or encouraged P to shoot
Principal offender:
Commits both MR and AR of principal offence
Co-principal:
D and another each commit AR + MR
R v Michael
Facts: D gave a nurse a drug to administer to her baby with the intention of killing it
Nurse left drug on mantelpiece and her 5 yr old administered it to V
Judgement: She was guilty of murder
L.P: -The nurse and child were innocent agents
- D remained cause of V’s death
D as an accomplice:
Rather than committing AR of offence, they aided, abetted, counselled or procured.
R v Giannetto
Facts: D threatened to kill his wife and hired someone to do it but it wasn’t clear who killed her
D was charged with murder as either principal offender or accomplice
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: D may be liable even where the jury were not unanimous on what role D played -> as long as principal/accomplice
Aiding:
Should be read as assisting
- D can assist before principal offence or at the time
- P doesn’t have to be aware of D’s help
Abetting:
Should be read as encouraging
- Can encourage positively (instigating) or negatively (threatening)
- Merely being present not enough
R v Clarkson
Facts: D1 and D2 entered a room in their barracks where a woman was being raped by other soldiers
They only remained present and didn’t do anything
Judgment: Not guilty
L.P: Voluntary presence capable of satisfying AR but not MR
D1 and D2 did not assist or encourage the rape by their presence
Counselling:
Should also be read as encouraging
Can D assist/encourage via omission?
Yes
Du Cros v Lambourne
Facts: D was charged with driving a motor vehicle at a dangerous speed but it wasn’t clear if he was driving or a passenger
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: Either driving or assisted P’s speed by failing to intervene (was D’s car)
R v Martin
D (supervising a learner driver) allowed P to drive dangerously resulting in deaths
R v Bryce
Facts: D drove P to a place to enable P to kill V knowing he would do this
P killed V 12 hours later
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: Despite time delay D’s acts continued to provide some assistance to the murder
-Court said that a composite phrase (aid, abet, counsel or procure) can be used as all show some form of casual connection
Procuring:
Produce by endeavour
Casual role in principal offence
A.G’s Reference (no 1 1975)
Facts: D laced P’s drink with alcohol knowing he would be driving home
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: D had procured P’s offence
Cogan v Leek
Facts: D told V to have sex with P
P did not know V was not consenting and was charged with rape
Judgment: P’s appeal allowed
L.P: D’s conviction was upheld despite P’s innocence, he procured the offence of rape
R v Jogee and Ruddock
Facts: combined cases where D forsaw P might harm V but did not intend him to
Judgment: Not guilty
L.P: Complicty liability requires D to intend to assist or encourage P to commit principle offence
-Foresight is no longer sufficient, its merely evidence of intent
DPP for NI v Maxwell
Facts: D drove P to a pub knowing he intended to attack but he didn’t know it is was murder, robbery or explosives -> P bombed pub and D charged with accessory to explosives offence
Judgment: Guilty
L.P: D does not need to know details of P’s offence, only the essential will matter
Thornton v Mitchell
Where P doesn’t commit AR there can be no accomplice liability
R v Bourne
If P has a defence, D can still be guilty of being an accomplice
Can D be complicit in an inchoate offence?
Yes
Can D be guilty of an inchoate complicity?
No
Defences: Withdrawal
R v Rook:
-Absence is not enough to withdraw from P’s offence
Defences: Victim Rule
R v Tyrell: - Cannot be complicit in an offence if that offence is meant to be protected a class of people one of which D is a member
R v English
If the principal offender acted in a way that was fundamentally different from that anticipated by D then o liability
