WS 8 - Accomplice Liability

Question 1

R v Tyrell

Answer 1

You can’t be an accomplice if you are the victim of a crime created to protect you (e.g. if a 14 yr old girl persuades her 19yr old BF to have sex with her) Lord Coleridge said couldn’t have been Parl’s intention to punish girls the law was designed to protect

Question 2

STEP 2: State Offence that D may have committed on the facts:

Answer 2

‘An offence under s.8 AAA 1861’

Question 3

s.8(1) AAA 1861

Answer 3

“Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.”

Question 4

Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability

Answer 4

(1) ‘Aid, abet, counsel or procure’

2) ‘A crime’

Question 5

Mens Rea of AL

Answer 5

National Coal Board v Gamble:

1) Intention to do the act that aided P
- Proved by deliberate act/words of assistance amounting to encouragement. Fact that D may not have wanted or intended to assist in commission of offence is irrelevant.
2) Knowledge of the circumstances: Must have knowledge or foresight of the essential elements of the principal offence

Question 6

• Garrett v Arthur Churchill

Answer 6

If a D had to do the act of assistance e.g. to fulfil a contractual obligation, they will still be liable for aiding a criminal offence as the Criminal law will take precedent over the Civil law [glass goblet export case]

Question 7

Johnson v Youden

Answer 7

D must have known/suspected that certain things would/might happen which in fact constitute AR of an offence. Irrelevant whether D knew the circumstances amounted to a crime [Goddard CJ says ignorance of the law is not a defence].

Question 8

R v Bainbridge

Answer 8

As long as D has a specific type of offence (e.g. theft) in his contemplation, exact details aren’t necessary.

Question 9

Maxwell v DPP Northern Ireland

Answer 9

If D has a range of offences within his contemplation, he is liable as accomplice for whichever one is committed. [House of Lords go further than Court of Appeal in Bainbridge]

Question 10

R v Slack [1989]

Answer 10

Court of Appeal: accomplice was liable if he had ‘tacitly agreed’ to the commission of the offence, or if he ‘had lent himself’ to the commission of that offence.

Question 11

R v Hyde [1990]

Answer 11

Lord Lane confirmed that even where no agreement between parties (express or tacit), if a person went along with a venture realising that the principal might commit a particular offence, that person was guilty as an accomplice as he had ‘lent himself to the enterprise and by so doing he has given assistance and encouragement.’

Question 12

R v Lovesey and Peterson [1970]

Answer 12

Lord Widgery confirms that all co-adventurers are liable for the unexpected consequences of carrying out a plan.

Question 13

R v Lovesey and Peterson; R v Anderson and Morris [1966]; R v Dunbar [1988]

Answer 13

all these of the view that where the principal offender has deliberately gone beyond the scope of a joint plan, the other parties to that plan have no liability in relation to the unauthorised act. They have not contemplated the essential elements of the crime committed. NOT GUILTY OF MS WHERE THE PO HAS GONE ON TO COMMIT MURDER

Question 14

R v Powell [1997]:

Answer 14

Ds start off together but the situation changes and A is aware the PO may have the MR for he ‘new’ offence. Then guilty as an accomplice to the new offence.

Question 15

A, B, C and D v R [2010]

Answer 15

Confirms R v Powell

Question 16

R v English [1997]

Answer 16

HoL held that if A foresaw that P might intentionally cause GBH (but not that P might intentionally kill) and P caused the GBH in a way fundamentally different from that foreseen by A (i.e. more dangerous weapon), A will have no liability for the outcome

Question 17

R v Rahman [2008] HoL

Answer 17

A could avoid liability by relying on English even if he foresaw that the P may intentionally kill.

Question 18

R v Yamoh [2009] CoA

Answer 18

Two different types of knife not sufficient to take it beyond the scope of original plan.

Question 19

R v Gilmour

Answer 19

Where PO does the agreed act but with a different MR to that contemplated by A: Guilty as an accomplice to the offence which matches A’s own MR. (petrol bomb into house, kills three children, Gilmour had driven the offenders to the property, was aware of the plan, but not the PO’s intention to cause GBH, guilty of accomplice to manslaughter)

Question 20

R v Roberts, Day and Day [2001]

Answer 20

Applied R v Gilmour

Question 21

• R v Becerra

Answer 21

Elements of effective withdrawal include unequivocal, timely communication of intention to withdraw. If already at scene of crime, communication is probably not enough. Although depends upon circumstances of each case.

Question 22

• R v Grundy:

Answer 22

Words alone may suffice where withdrawal takes place before a crime (i.e. two weeks of persuasion not to do the crime). CoA said should have been left to the jury

Question 23

How can accomplice withdraw if assistance is physical?

Answer 23

• If assistance has been physical, more than verbal communication may be necessary in order to constitute withdrawal

Question 24

How can accomplice withdraw if assistance is physical?

Answer 24

• If assistance has been physical, more than verbal communication may be necessary in order to constitute withdrawal

Question 25

s.1(4)(b) CAA 1981

Answer 25

NB You cannot be charged with attempt to be an accomplice

Question 26

ENCOURAGING or ASSISTING CRIME

Answer 26

s.44 Serious Crime Act 2007: Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence.
• S.44(1)(a) – does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
• S.44(1)(b) – intends to encourage or assist its commission

s. 45 – offence of encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed
s. 46 – covers encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

Question 27

CONSPIRACY

Answer 27

s.1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977: if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct will be pursued which if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions…
a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement…
he is guilty of conspiracy