W8 - Accomplice Liability Flashcards
Principal offender v accomplice
Principal offender = person who physically performs the AR (must also have required MR) - innocent agent used => person who uses the agent is the principal
Accomplice= secondary offender who in some way assists the principal with the commission of the offence
s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
AR= aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence (ordinary English meaning; A-G's ref No 1 of 1975) MR= intention to assist or encourage the commission of the offence; knowledge of the circumstances ie any existing facts which make PO's conduct criminal (NCB v Gamble)
Strict liability offence => does not need any MR, even if the primary D does (Callow v Tillstone)
Imp notes
- Cannot be convicted as an accomplice unless the AR of the principal offence has been committed (Dias; Cogan and Leak)
- D is victim of sexual offence created to protect them (underage) they will not be charged as a guilty accomplice (Tyrell)
- D committed a crime due to contractual obligation, they can still incur accomplice liability, as the criminal law supersedes the civil law (Garrett v Arthur Churchill)
- Accomplices can be given equal punishments to the principal offender (s8 AAA for indictable or either-way offences; s44 Magistrates Court Act 1980 for summary offences)
- possible to be an accomplice to an attempt but not an attempt to be an accomplice (s1(4)(b) Criminal Attempts Act 1981)
Aid
= to give help, support or assistance; before and/or at the time of the offence
eg
- Holding down the victim (Clarkson)
- Guising principals to the scene of the crime (Maxwell v DPP)
- Supplying burglars with tools (Bainbridge)
Abet
= encouraging or inciting; at the time of the commission of the offence
eg
- encouraging someone to perform illegally by buying a ticket for, and writing an article praising, their performance (Wilcox v Jeffrey)
- simply being present at the scene of the crime does not normally amount to abetting (Clarkson)
- BUT failing to intervene if there is a duty to do so amounts to encouragement (Russell and Russell; Du Cros v Lambourne)
- mental link likely also necessary (Gnango)
Counsel
= advising, soliciting or encouraging; before the commission of the offence
- must be a mental link eg the principal is aware of the encouragement (Gnango)
Procure
= to ‘produce by endeavour’ (AG ref no 1 of 1975); before and/or at the time of the offence
- causal link necessary
eg spiking someone’s drink so they are caught drink driving
Innocent Agents
= someone that commits the AR of the offence but not guilty either because they lack MR or because they have a specific defence available to them
- children under 10
- in sexual offences the appropriate charge is that of acting as an accomplice having procured the commission of the offence rather than charge of being a principal offender acting through an innocent agent- eg women can’t commit rape (Cogan and Leak; Bourne)
Intend to commit the act
- PO does the agreed act but with a different MR to that contemplated by A => A is guilty as an accomplice to offence which matches A’s own MR
- may have higher MR (Howe) or lesser MR (Gilmour)
- If Ds start off together but PO goes beyond the scope of the plan => A must intend to assist or encourage the PO in the ‘new’ offence
- Sufficient evidence of A’s foresight/ understanding of what might happen may amount to intent as to the new crime (Jogee)
Knowledge of the circumstances
Valid if:
- A knows the type of crime (does not need to know exact details - Bainbridge)
- A knows the crime is within a limited range (Maxwell)
=> D2 must merely foresee ‘essential matters’ constituting the offence (Johnson v Youden), even if D1 acts beyond the scope of the plan (Lovesey and Peterson)
- D2 does not need to know that the precise circumstances amounted to an offence- sufficient for D2 to have contemplated a ‘real possibility’ that the principal might commit the relevant offence (what they actually foresaw => subjective test)
Defences - Withdrawal from participation
- Action necessary to break the chain of causation and responsibility depends on the circumstances of each case => matter of fact for jury
- Must be more than mere change of intention
- effective withdrawal => must unequivocally communicate his withdrawal prior to the commission of the offence (Becerra) eg by trying to persuade D1 to not go ahead in the weeks before the crime (Grundy)
- timing of the withdrawal (dependent on the facts): closer to offence, the more that is required of D to evidence the intent to withdraw
- Immediately before the offence => may only be sufficient if D takes all reasonable steps to prevent the offence (Becerra)
