Secondary Participation (new)

Question 0

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 0

The only time that the SP is distinguished from P is in strict liability

Question 1

Secondary Participation AR/MR

Answer 1

Aid - AG Reg (No.1 1975)
Abet - Gianetto
Counsel - Baker
Procure - Cogan and Leak       
W/ knowledge - Bainbridge intent - Bryce

Question 2

Abbott

Answer 2

Joint principals, where both have contributed to the commission of the AR with relevant MR or where it is not clear which did the AR so both can be liable as P - if it is clear that one caused death then he is P - result is the same

Question 3

Saunders and Archer

Answer 3

Innocent agent, this does not apply where the IA is also guilty - insanity and infancy are defences

Question 4

AG Ref (No.1 1975)

Answer 4

AR to aid - assist, give help or support

Question 5

Able

Answer 5

RE aiding - merely trying to help is not enough cf. Woolf J - there is no general offence of attempting to aid another to commit a crime
RE abetting - overlap with counselling

Question 7

Gianetto

Answer 7

AR to abet - need to be present at comission - i.e. encourage - mere presence may be enough, but it must in fact encourage and SP must intend it to encourage

Question 8

Clarkson

Answer 8

Abet - Mere presence is usually insufficient

Question 9

Wilcox v Jeffrey

Answer 9

Abet can take place by omission where SP has a duty or right to control P and he fails to do so

Question 10

Baker

Answer 10

AR Counsel - do not need to be present - 1. Contact between parties, 2. connection between counselling and offence, 3. the act done must be within scope of authority

Question 11

Cogan and Leak

Answer 11

AR Procuring - ensuring something happens by taking steps to produce its outcome - must induce but need not be sine qua non - just influential

Question 12

Bainbridge

Answer 12

Supplying materials - need not know the specific crime but rather the ‘contemplation principle’

Question 13

Cassady

Answer 13

Where an employer has a mere power over an employee, this will be proof of AR but this can be rebutted by D

Question 14

Gamble (oblique)

Answer 14

D must intend his own AR, which is to aid, abet, etc. - foresight of the consequences being a virtual certainty is sufficient

Question 15

Bryce

Answer 15

It is no defence that D was indifferent to the commission of the offence - must show that he did not have intention to aid abet , etc.

Question 16

Johnson v Youden and Others

Bainbridge

Answer 16

D also needs his own MR for AR (intention to aid, etc.) and knowledge of, or at least, wilful blindness to, the circumstances
- ‘Contemplation principle’

Question 17

DPP for NI v Maxwell (extending Bainbridge)

Answer 17

D must have had foresight of the type of offence, a range of possible offences but knowledge that the purpose is illegal is insufficient

Question 18

Lomas

Answer 18

Where D is under a legal duty, e.g. returning a knife to P, then he will not be convicted NB problematic per civil law

Question 19

Lynch

Answer 19

Regret and horror of a plan is no defence

Question 20

Gillick v West Norfolk Health Authority

Answer 20

Problematic as the doctor did intent to aid, abet sexual intercourse by giving contraception NB best way is to let offence run and offer duress/necessity as defence

Question 21

Calhaem

Answer 21

Transferred malice applies to D where he encourages P to kill ‘someone’ as opposed to X, if D then goes and kills Y then he will not be liable unless that was unintentional