W9 Parties to a Crime (Dean)

Question 1

Who can be a party to an offence?

Answer 1

21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Question 2

Are aiding an abetting the same thing?

Answer 2

No

Question 3

What is the difference between aiding and abetting?

Answer 3

“Aiding” - a person may be found guilty of an offence because he helped somebody else to commit it. We describe those who “help” others commit crimes as aiders.

“Abettors” - Persons who “encourage” others to commit an offence may also be found guilty of the offence they encourage. We describe those who encourage as abettors.

Question 4

Is being presence at a crime scene enough to be considered an aider/abettor/party to the crime?

Answer 4

Not in isolation. Presence at the commission of an offence can be evidence of aiding or abetting only if accompanied by other factors, such as prior knowledge of the principal offender’s intention to commit the offence or attendance for the purpose of encouragement

Question 5

A person cannot be an aider/abettor if…

Answer 5

They do not know (or have prior knowledge) that their acts will assist in a criminal offence

Question 6

What knowledge must a convicted aider/abettor have had?

Answer 6

Specific details are not necessary. Only the ultimate criminal aim must be known. Ex. for murder, the aider must know the the principle’s intent to kill

Question 7

If Johnny witnesses a bank robbery and does nothing to prevent it, is he guilty of aiding/abetting?

Answer 7

No. More is needed. Passive acquiescence is not enough.

Question 8

True or false: Aiding/Abetting will attract a lesser charge than that of the principle.

Answer 8

False. Canadian criminal law does not distinguish between the principal offender and parties to an offence in determining criminal liability. Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code makes perpetrators, aiders, and abettors equally liable:

Question 9

What is the cactus reus of an aider/abettor?

Answer 9

doing (or, in some circumstances, omitting to do) something that assists or encourages the perpetrator to commit the offence.

Question 10

If Steve does something that results in an assault (ex. blocking the victim’s escape) would that be sufficient to make him an aider/abettor?

Answer 10

Depends. If Steve did it for the PURPOSE of aiding the assaulter commit the assault, then yes (this is the required mens era). If he just happened to be in the victim’s way, then no.

Question 11

For the mens era, what is the definition of an aider/abettor doing something for the “purpose” of rendering assistance?

Answer 11

that the accused intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence

Question 12

For the purposes of aiding/abetting, must the accused have desired for the criminal offence to occur?

Answer 12

No. All that is required for the Crown to prove BRD is that the accused INTENDED TO ASSIST. Whether or not they desired for the offence to be successful is irrelevant.

Question 13

What forknowlage must an aider/abettor have?

Answer 13

the aider must know that the perpetrator intends to commit the crime, although he or she need not know precisely how it will be committed

Question 14

Is the notion of forgeability judged on a subjective or objective standard?

Answer 14

For specific intent crimes, it can only be a subjective standard. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional.

Question 15

What are the 4 elements the defence of abandonment?

Answer 15

(1)that there was an intention to abandon or withdraw from the unlawful purpose;

(2) that there was timely communication of this abandonment or withdrawal from the person in question to those who wished to continue;

(3) that the communication served unequivocal notice upon those who wished to continue; and

(4) that the accused took, in a manner proportional to his or her participation in the commission of the planned offence, reasonable steps in the circumstances either to neutralize or otherwise cancel out the effects of his or her participation or to prevent the commission of the offence.

Question 16

Before the question of abandonment is put to a jury, what must the evidence show?

Answer 16

That there is an air of reality to the claim that the accused took reasonable steps to either neutralize the effects of their participation, or prevent the commission of the offence

Question 17

What is the actus reus and the mens tea of the offence of Counselling?

Answer 17

The Actus is deliberate encouragement or active inducement of the commission of a criminal offence.

The Mens era is an accompanying intent or conscious disregard of the substantial and unjustified risk inherent in the counselling: that is, it must be shown that the accused either intended that the offence counselled be committed, or knowingly counselled the commission of the offence while aware of the unjustified risk that the offence counselled was in fact likely to be committed as a result of the accused’s conduct.

Question 18

Is reckless behaviour suffiecnet for the mens rea of counselling?

Answer 18

Yes

Question 19

For an Accessory after the Fact, what must be proven, and who must prove it?

Answer 19

the Crown must prove that the accessory actually knew that the person to whom assistance was given was a party to the specific offence alleged

Question 20

If Larry stumbles onto Jimmy’s doorstep and says “I’m in trouble with the law” and Jimmy hides him for a week, would that make Jimmy an accessory?

Answer 20

Only if Jimmy finds out what specific offence Larry is alleged to have committed.

Question 21

If Jimmy stumbles onto a bloody knife that belongs to Larry, and Larry explains that “I might have hurt-“ before Jimmy tells Larry to be quiet, would that make Jimmy an accessory?

Answer 21

Possibly. Wilful blindness suffices for an accessory after the fact.