Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Fundamental requirements of criminal liability - Coggle Diagram
Fundamental requirements of criminal liability
Complicity
s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 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 and mens rea requirements of aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring
requirements for liability for participation in a joint enterprise
rules governing liability where there is a departure from the joint enterprise
requirements for an effective withdrawal
the extent to which a principal and a secondary party may incur different liability
doctrine of parasitic accessorial liability PAL
theoretical basis of accessorial liability
proposals for reform
R v Clarkson (1971)
Evidence only proved that D's were continuingly and deliberately present, that was not enough to conclude that by their presence they actually encouraged the rapes. Convictions were quashed.
A-G's Ref (No 1 of 1975) (1975)
Principal driving with blood alcohol level over limit. Secondary party added alcohol to principal's drink without his knowledge, knowing he would be driving. S8 should be given ordinary meaning where possible.
R v Becerra and Cooper (1975)
For one member of a joint enterprise to decide to withdraw from such enterprise, mere mental change of intention and physical change of place is not sufficient save in exceptional circumstances; there must be where practicable and reasonable be a timely and unequivocal communication of his intention to withdraw to those parties to intend to carry on.
DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell (1979)
Knowledge of the actual offence committed need not be shown before a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting; it is sufficient to show that he knew the type of offence to be committed or the essential matters constituting the offence.
R v Calhaem (1985)
The word "counsel" in the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s8 does not imply any causal connection between the counselling and the principal offence.
DPP v K and B (1997)
Held that the AR had occurred K and C had the MR to procure rape. There was no authority for saying that K and C could go free because the principal did not have the MR.
R v Powell and Daniels (1997)
To establish the requisite MR for murder against a secondary party to a joint enterprise, it must be proven that the secondary party contemplated the type of act actually committed by the principal. where death is caused by a weapon more dangerous than that known to be in the possession of the principal, foresight of its use to kill or to cause serious injury will be difficult to prove.
R v English (1997)
Attacked police with wooden posts W stabbed officer with knife. E's appeal allowed commit an act which is fundamentally different from the one jointly contemplated.
R v Uddin (1998)
existence of the murder weapon which was used was outside the expectation of the defendant
R v Gilmour (2000)
Allowing the appeal there was insufficient evidence to show that G had known that the principal offenders intended to cause GBH to the occupiers of the house. No evidence to show G had known that a particularly large bottle was being used which could be expected to cause more damage.
R v Gnango (2011)
Supreme Court reinstated D's conviction. D and B had voluntarily engaged in a gunfight with each other, each intending to kill or cause GBH to the other, and each foreseeing that the other had the reciprocal intention.
Court reasoned that D had aided abetted, counselled and/or procured B to shoot at him and was therefore, guilty of aiding and abetting his own attempted murder.
R v Carpenter (2011)
Mendez did not depart from the established line of authority in Roberts that the participant that lacked the requisite mens rea for murder might nonetheless be guilty of manslaughter
R v Wiggins (2012)
D had to have the weapon with him when entering the building - aggravated burglary.
R v Rafferty (2007)
The final act of drowning the victim was a fundamentally different act to what the D had contemplated.
R v Mendez & Thompson (2010)
Whether the principal's unforeseen act was of a nature altogether more life threatening
R V Stringer (2011)
Chasing V amounted to conduct assisting and encouraging the offender
R v Chan Wing Siu (1985)
Appeals dismissed - had in mind the possibility that some serious bodily harm may result during the course of their enterprise. Prosecution to prove that each had in their mind the possibility.
R v Jogee (2016)
Doctrine of parasitic accessory liability laid down in Chan Wing Siu could not be supported.
R v Crilly (2018)
Appeal allowed the evidence against him was not so strong that it could be safely and fairly inferred that te jury would have found the requisite intent to cause GBH followed Jogee.
R v Taj (2018)
Appeal dismissed self-induced intoxication
R v Mitchell (2018)
Appeal dismissed the recorder had given directions as to the need for some act to be done to indicate withdrawal.
Rahman & Others (2008)
Appeals dismissed. the Court must look at what D foresaw their associate might do in such a case.