Secondary Parties Flashcards
Variations in liability - PO convicted of lesser crime
Howe : SP can be convicted of accomplice to a more serious crime than the PO actually committed
Variations in liability - no principal offender
SP can still be liable
Bourne : PO acquitted due to defence of duress
DPP v K and B : PO was not found so could not determine if he had the fault element of rape
Withdrawal from participation
Depends on the nature of SPs participation
Nearness to completion : Becerra compared to Whitefield
Communication of withdrawal : Rook; Becerra
Spontaneous offences : Robinson
Aiding
Helping
Failure to exercise control where a right to do so
- Tuck v Robeson : pub owner
- Du Cros v Lambourne : car
Abetting
Encouragement
- Gianetto : oh goody
- Stringer : for the jury to decide
Unplanned presence at the scene of the crime
- Wilcox v Joffrey : illegal concert
-
Counselling
Calheam : not necessary to show a causal link
Procuring
AGs Ref (1 of 1975) - Necessary to show a causal link, but PO doesn’t have to be aware if procurement
Accomplices - fault elements
1) intention to aid…
- NCB v gamble : voluntary act of assistance
- Bryce : at the time of the act, D must foresee the risk that PO will offend as a real possibility
- for procurement, intention, not recklessness, must be shown
2) knowledge of circumstances surrounding the offence
- test if heather D knew of a crime of that kind : Bainbridge, DPP v maxwell
Joint unlawful enterprise
1) PO intended to commit the offence
2) SP took some part in the attack
3) SP foresaw an attack if the same degree
- Powell : no liability if D dismissed the possibility as negligible
- English : SP foresees an act that is not fundamentally different
- Greatrex : there is a fundamental difference between kicking and hitting with an iron bar
- Yehmoh : no diff between smaller and larger knife
- Rahman : liable for kill with intention to kill
