WS 8 - Accomplice Liability Flashcards
R v Tyrell
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
STEP 2: State Offence that D may have committed on the facts:
‘An offence under s.8 AAA 1861’
s.8(1) AAA 1861
“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.”
Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability
(1) ‘Aid, abet, counsel or procure’
2) ‘A crime’
Mens Rea of AL
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
• Garrett v Arthur Churchill
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]
Johnson v Youden
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].
R v Bainbridge
As long as D has a specific type of offence (e.g. theft) in his contemplation, exact details aren’t necessary.
Maxwell v DPP Northern Ireland
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]
R v Slack [1989]
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.
R v Hyde [1990]
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.’
R v Lovesey and Peterson [1970]
Lord Widgery confirms that all co-adventurers are liable for the unexpected consequences of carrying out a plan.
R v Lovesey and Peterson; R v Anderson and Morris [1966]; R v Dunbar [1988]
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
R v Powell [1997]:
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.
A, B, C and D v R [2010]
Confirms R v Powell
R v English [1997]
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
R v Rahman [2008] HoL
A could avoid liability by relying on English even if he foresaw that the P may intentionally kill.
R v Yamoh [2009] CoA
Two different types of knife not sufficient to take it beyond the scope of original plan.
R v Gilmour
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)
R v Roberts, Day and Day [2001]
Applied R v Gilmour
• R v Becerra
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.
• R v Grundy:
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
How can accomplice withdraw if assistance is physical?
• If assistance has been physical, more than verbal communication may be necessary in order to constitute withdrawal
How can accomplice withdraw if assistance is physical?
• If assistance has been physical, more than verbal communication may be necessary in order to constitute withdrawal
s.1(4)(b) CAA 1981
NB You cannot be charged with attempt to be an accomplice
ENCOURAGING or ASSISTING CRIME
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
CONSPIRACY
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
