10 - Parties of a Crime

Question 1

What is the scope of criminal liability for individuals who assist or encourage a crime?

Answer 1

The criminal law’s scope extends widely to deter and punish individuals who assist or encourage crimes, even if they are less directly involved.

While the focus is often on those who commit substantive offences like murder or theft, the law also applies to those on the fringes of the crime, known as “helpers,” who assist or encourage.

These individuals may attract criminal liability even if they do not directly commit the offence.

The law allows multiple people to be charged with the same offence, despite having played different roles in the crime, reflecting the responsibility of all parties involved.

Question 2

What are the different roles in criminal liability, and how are they defined?

Answer 2

Principal Offender: This is the person who commits the actus reus of a substantive criminal offence with the necessary mens rea.
Example: Pat snatches Vera’s mobile phone and runs off with it, making Pat guilty of theft.

Joint Principals (or Co-Principals): Where two or more people perform the actus reus and mens rea of an offence together.
Example: Ian and Neil both enter Ann’s property as trespassers and steal her computer; they are both guilty of burglary under s 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.

Secondary Party (also known as an Accomplice or Accessory): This refers to those who assist in the commission of an offence in some way, without committing the actus reus of the offence themselves.
Example: Shane stands outside Ann’s property acting as a lookout while others carry out the burglary; Shane is a secondary party to the burglary.

Question 3

How should one approach the analysis of criminal liability for parties involved in a crime?

Answer 3

Start by analysing each defendant’s role in the offence, identifying the principal offender(s) first to assess their liability.

For example:
(a) If Pat throws bricks at a window, he is the principal offender for criminal damage.
(b) If Pat and Soji both throw bricks, they are joint principal offenders.
(c) If Arnie hands Pat a brick but does not throw it, Arnie has lesser involvement and may be considered an accomplice.

When multiple defendants are involved, determine whether any have lesser involvement, classifying them as either principal offenders or accomplices accordingly.

Question 4

What is the principle of accomplice liability under s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?

Answer 4

Accomplice liability is outlined in s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, stating that anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, or procures” the commission of an offence, whether it is a common law offence or created by statute, is liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

Although the language in the statute is outdated (referring to “being indicted” and implying that accomplice liability applies only to indictable offences), it actually applies to both either-way and indictable-only offences.

The law also provides similar provisions for accomplice liability in summary-only offences under s 44 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

Question 5

How does the law view the blameworthiness of accomplices compared to principal offenders?

Answer 5

The law considers a person who assists in the commission of an offence to be as blameworthy as the person committing the crime itself.

Consequently, an accomplice convicted of aiding in the offence can receive the same punishment as the principal offender, reflecting the law’s view of their shared responsibility.

Example: Weimin, angry at Peng for an unpaid loan, asks his friend Quon for a machete, saying he intends to “finish Peng once and for all.” Quon, knowing Weimin’s intention, agrees to lend him the weapon. Weimin then uses the machete to fatally wound Peng, causing his death.
- Roles: Weimin is the principal offender, as he committed the actus reus of murder with the intention to kill Peng.
- Accomplice: Quon, although not committing the actus reus of murder himself, aided Weimin by supplying the weapon with the intent for it to be used in the crime.

As an accomplice, Quon would be convicted of murder and subject to the same mandatory life sentence as Weimin. However, the prosecution would need to prove different actus reus and mens rea elements for Quon’s conviction as an accomplice compared to those required for Weimin.

Question 6

What are the four ways an accomplice may satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability under s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?

Answer 6

An accomplice may fulfil the actus reus by:
- Aiding: Helping or supporting the principal offender.
- Abetting: Encouraging the principal during the commission of the offence.
- Counselling: Instigating or encouraging the principal before the offence occurs.
- Procuring: Causing the offence to occur by deliberate action.

According to the Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975), each of these terms has a distinct meaning, as confirmed by Lord Widgery CJ, who noted that Parliament would not use four different terms unnecessarily. However, in practice, charges often use all terms without specifying one.

Question 7

What is involved in “aiding” as a form of accomplice liability, and how might it be provided?

Answer 7

Aiding involves helping, assisting, or supporting the principal offender in some way that enables the commission of the offence.

What does it mean? The term ‘aiding’ suggests providing assistance or support that allows the principal offender to commit the offence.

When? Aid will generally be given at the time of the offence, but it may also be given earlier. However, it does not include those whose involvement only occurs after the offence, such as those who dispose of evidence or delete incriminating emails, as there are separate offences covering such scenarios.

How? Aiding given before the offence might include providing the principal with a weapon or specific information that aids the crime, such as when a householder will be away to enable burglary, or teaching skills for internet fraud. Aid during the offence could include acting as a lookout or physically restraining the victim while the principal commits an assault.

Question 8

How is “abetting” defined in the context of accomplice liability, and when does it occur?

Answer 8

Abetting requires that the accomplice encourage the principal offender in some way to commit the offence.

What? Abetting involves encouragement by the accomplice for the principal to commit the offence.

When? Abetting must occur during the commission of the offence, so it takes place at the same time as the principal’s actions.

How? Abetting may be done through words or gestures, such as shouting specific words of encouragement (e.g., “Kick him!” during an assault), or using gestures to encourage, like miming a punch or giving a thumbs up.

Question 9

What is meant by “counselling” in accomplice liability, and what distinguishes it from abetting?

Answer 9

Counselling involves instigating, soliciting, or encouraging the principal to commit the offence, but this encouragement occurs before the offence takes place.

What? Counselling includes encouraging or instigating the principal to commit the offence, possibly by making it seem like a good idea.

When? Counselling occurs prior to the offence, which is its distinction from abetting (which requires encouragement at the scene, during the offence).

How? For example, a person might counsel an assault by “winding up” the principal (e.g., agreeing with the principal’s comment about wanting to “punch his son’s teacher” by saying the teacher “deserves it”). The amount of encouragement needed does not have to be substantial; in R v Gianetto, a husband’s response of “Oh goody” to “I am going to kill your wife” was sufficient to convict him as an accomplice on the basis of counselling the offence.

Question 10

What does “procuring” mean in the context of accomplice liability, and how does it differ from other forms?

Answer 10

Procuring is distinct from the other forms of accomplice liability; it involves deliberately setting out to bring about a particular outcome or state of affairs, effectively causing the offence.

What? Procuring, as defined by Lord Widgery in Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 1975), means “to produce by endeavour.” The accomplice takes steps to bring about the offence.

When? Procuring generally occurs at an earlier time to the offence, as it involves creating circumstances that result in the offence.

How? For instance, a person who secretly adds alcohol to a friend’s drink, knowing the friend will soon drive, is procuring the offence of driving with excess alcohol. By “spiking” the drink, the accomplice causes the principal to commit an offence they would not otherwise have committed.

Question 11

What does “mere presence at the scene” imply in the context of accomplice liability, and what is required to prove abetting?

Answer 11

For abetting, it is not enough for a defendant to be merely present at the scene of a crime; they must wilfully encourage its commission through active steps, such as words or actions.

Mere presence, even if it indirectly encourages the principal, is insufficient without proof of active encouragement.
- In R v Allan, the Court of Appeal clarified that mere presence, without any supportive action or encouragement, is not enough for liability as an accomplice, even if there was a private desire to get involved.
- By contrast, in Wilcox v Jeffery, the defendant’s actions, including meeting the musician at the airport, purchasing a ticket, attending the concert, and writing about it, were seen as encouragement, making him an accomplice. The audience’s presence was considered essential for the illegal performance, providing direct encouragement to the musician.

Question 12

How does the specific context of each case affect whether mere presence at the scene is sufficient for accomplice liability?

Answer 12

Liability depends on the facts of each case. Mere presence does not usually satisfy the actus reus of being an accomplice unless:
- The defendant’s attendance was prearranged with the principal, suggesting active support.
- The defendant provided encouragement or assistance at the scene through words or actions.

For example, if someone passively observes a crime without any prior arrangement or action, they may not be liable. However, if silence implies consent or encouragement (especially if they have some control, such as being the car owner in a dangerous driving situation), they could be considered an accomplice.

Question 13

Provide a summary of the key actus reus components for accomplice liability in s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861?

Answer 13

The actus reus components under s 8 include:
Aid: Assisting or helping the principal before or the time of the offence.
Abet: Encouraging the principal during the offence.
Counsel: Instigating or soliciting the offence before the offence.
Procure: Actively causing the offence to occur through deliberate steps before the offence.

Question 14

In accomplice liability, what is the importance of a link between the principal and the accomplice?

Answer 14

Generally, the prosecution must show some connection or contact between the principal and the accomplice, often where they meet or liaise to discuss the crime.
- Aiding, abetting, or counselling: Typically, there will be some form of contact or a “meeting of minds” between the principal and accomplice.
- For example, in Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975), the court noted a “meeting of minds” is usual when the accomplice aids or abets the offence.

However:
- Procuring: There is no requirement for a mental link or contact. Case law supports that procurement can occur without any prior agreement or discussion between the principal and accomplice.

Therefore, in cases of aiding, abetting, or counselling, a link or interaction is typically expected, but for procurement, it is not required.

Question 15

How does the concept of a “mental link” or “meeting of minds” apply in cases of accomplice liability?

Answer 15

A “meeting of minds” generally refers to a mental connection between the principal and accomplice, but it does not require prior discussion.

In aiding, abetting, or counselling:
- A meeting of minds usually implies some interaction or contact, where both parties are aware of the assistance or encouragement.
- For instance, if one person distracts a police officer during an offence, the principal’s awareness of this aid, even if not pre-discussed, indicates a mental link.

In contrast, for procurement:
-There is no need for a meeting of minds, meaning the accomplice can be liable even if the principal is unaware of the accomplice’s involvement, as the actions are intended to bring about the offence.

Question 16

When might a person be considered an accomplice despite the principal being unaware of their assistance?

Answer 16

Accomplice liability can arise even without the principal’s awareness if the accomplice provides physical assistance to aid the offence.
- For instance, if an individual aids by distracting law enforcement to allow the principal to complete a transaction without any prior communication, they may still be an accomplice.

However, in cases of counselling or abetting, proving accomplice liability usually requires the principal’s knowledge of the encouragement or advice, indicating a mental link.

This distinction highlights that accomplice liability can arise without the principal’s knowledge in cases involving physical assistance, but not in cases involving encouragement or advice.

Question 17

What is the requirement of a causal link in cases involving accomplice liability under procurement?

Answer 17

In cases where the accomplice is alleged to have procured an offence, a causal link must be established between the accomplice’s actions and the principal’s commission of the crime.

This means the accomplice’s behaviour must directly cause the offence. For instance, an accomplice who secretly adds alcohol to the principal’s drink has caused the principal to drive over the legal alcohol limit, creating a causal link.

However, when the allegation is that the accomplice aided, abetted, or counselled the offence, a causal link is not necessary:
- While the principal may be influenced by the accomplice’s assistance or encouragement, it is sufficient that the crime would likely have occurred regardless.
- Example: In R v Calhaem [1985], the defendant hired a hit man to kill her rival. Despite the hit man claiming he didn’t intend to kill and only went to appear as though he would, he killed the victim during a confrontation. The defendant argued that her counselling didn’t cause the murder. The court rejected this, ruling that causation isn’t required in cases of counselling, only encouragement or advice.

Question 18

Provide a summary of how a mental or causal link required in different forms of accomplice liability?

Answer 18

Aiding:
Neither a mental nor causal link between the principal and accomplice is required, meaning the principal may not even know of the accomplice’s assistance, and the help need not impact their decision to commit the offence.

Abetting and Counselling:
A mental link is required, meaning the principal must be aware of the accomplice’s encouragement or advice.
No causal link is required; it is irrelevant whether the crime would have occurred without the accomplice’s involvement.

Procuring:
A causal link is required, meaning the accomplice’s actions must directly lead to the offence.
No mental link is necessary; the principal doesn’t need to know they were influenced by the accomplice.

Question 19

What is the relationship between the principal offender and the accomplice in terms of criminal liability, and what exceptions exist?

Answer 19

The actus reus of the principal offence must have occurred for an accomplice to be criminally liable. In practice, the principal is usually prosecuted and convicted as well.

However, it is possible for the accomplice to be convicted even if the principal is not convicted. Two exceptions where this can happen are:

• Principal has a defence:
  If the principal offender has a valid defence, such as in R v Cogan and Leak [1976], where the principal (Cogan) was acquitted of rape due to his belief in consent, but the accomplice (Leak) was convicted for encouraging the act knowing the wife would not consent.

The law has since changed to require a reasonable belief in consent, not just an honest belief, to avoid liability for rape.

• Principal cannot be found:
  In R v Gnango [2011], the principal (Bandana Man) was never found after a shootout that led to the death of a passer-by, but Gnango was convicted as an accomplice for aiding Bandana Man in the crime, despite Bandana Man’s absence. The Supreme Court upheld Gnango’s conviction based on a shared plan to shoot each other, making him guilty of aiding the murder.

These cases are exceptions to the general rule that the principal must be convicted before the accomplice can be held liable.

Question 20

What is the concept of “innocent agency” and how does it relate to accomplice liability?

Answer 20

An innocent agent is someone who commits the actus reus of a crime but lacks the mens rea to be guilty of the offence.

The person who uses the innocent agent to commit the crime is usually the one liable for the offence, as they have the necessary mens rea.

Example:
- Melinda asks her sister Sarina to destroy some of her clothes, but Sarina, believing the clothes belong to Melinda, burns them. The items actually belong to Beatrice, who reports the crime.
- Melinda has procured the offence of criminal damage by arranging for Sarina to commit the actus reus. However, Melinda, not Sarina, would be charged as the principal offender, since she used Sarina, an innocent agent, to commit the actus reus of the crime.

Question 21

Provide a summary of the actus reus of accomplice liability.

Answer 21

A person satisfies the actus reus of accomplice liability if they:
- Help to bring about the offence by acting, advising, assisting, or encouraging before the crime occurs.
- Are present at the scene of the crime in order to assist or encourage.
- Are present at the scene of the crime and do assist or encourage.

The four different ways in which the accomplice may attract criminal liability are:
- Aiding may occur either before or during the commission of the principal offence.
- Abetting takes place during the offence, while counselling and procuring happen beforehand.
- Abetting and counselling require a mental link, but only procuring requires a causal link.
- Mere presence at the scene of the crime may provide evidence of encouragement, but presence alone does not automatically equate to encouragement.

Question 22

What are the key elements of mens rea for accomplice liability?

Answer 22

The mens rea of accomplice liability involves two key elements:
1. Mens rea in relation to the act or words that establish the actus reus of accomplice liability.
2. Knowledge or awareness of the circumstances of the principal offence.

The law on mens rea of accomplice liability has been complex and has caused difficulties in the courts, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, which concluded that the law on accomplice liability had gone astray.

Question 23

What is meant by “joint venture” or “joint enterprise” in the context of the mens rea of accomplice liability?

Answer 23

A joint venture (or joint enterprise) refers to a situation where there is more than one party committing an offence with a common purpose or plan.

This can involve:
- Multiple principal offenders, such as several individuals working together in a greenhouse to cultivate cannabis.
- Peripheral participants, who may not be directly involved in the commission of the offence but are still caught by the criminal justice system, such as individuals involved in gangs who are at the scene but do not physically commit the crime (e.g., they don’t fire the gun or stab the victim).

The term “joint venture” has become particularly associated with those on the periphery of the offence.

Question 24

What is required to establish the intention to assist, encourage, or procure an offence in accomplice liability (mens rea)?

Answer 24

The first requirement is that the defendant intentionally (or deliberately):

(a) Did the act that assisted, encouraged, or procured the offence; or
(b) Spoke the words that advised, encouraged, or procured the crime.

Examples include:
- Selling a gun to the principal offender.
- Discussing how to carry out a burglary.

National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11:
- The court explained that indifference to the crime does not negate liability.
- In this case, a weighbridge operator allowed an overloaded lorry to leave the colliery, resulting in an offence.
- The court ruled that a positive act of assistance voluntarily done was enough for liability, regardless of whether the defendant wanted or intended the offence to occur.

The intentional nature of the act or words is crucial. If the conduct is deliberate, it is usually easy to establish that the accomplice intended to assist or encourage the offence.

Question 25

What is required for an accomplice to have the necessary knowledge of the circumstances for accomplice liability (mens rea)?

Answer 25

The accomplice must know the relevant circumstances that make the principal's actions criminal. This includes: - Knowing the facts that satisfy the elements of the actus reus of the crime. - Being aware of the principal’s state of mind (their mens rea) at the time the offence is committed. **Example**: - In Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544, it was held that the accomplice must know the essential matters constituting the offence, and be aware of the principal’s intention to commit the offence. - The accomplice must either know that the crime will be committed or contemplate that certain events will happen that will amount to a criminal act.

Question 26

How does the accomplice’s knowledge of the circumstances affect the mens rea for accomplice liability?

Answer 26

To satisfy the second limb of the mens rea for accomplice liability, the accomplice must know that the principal intends to commit the actus reus of the offence and that the principal does so with the required mens rea. **Example**: - Donal accompanies Baptiste to act as a lookout while Baptiste breaks into an office building to steal computers. - Donal not only satisfies the actus reus of accomplice liability by aiding Baptiste at the time of the offence, but also satisfies the mens rea as he knows that Baptiste intends to enter the building as a trespasser and steal property inside.

Question 27

Does an accomplice need to know the specific details of the offence to be guilty?

Answer 27

The accomplice does not need to know the precise details of the offence, but must know the type of crime being committed. - **Example 1**: In R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129, the accused supplied oxygen-cutting equipment to the principal, who used it to break into a bank. The accomplice did not know the exact details of the intended offence, but the Court of Appeal held that it was enough for the accomplice to know the type of crime (burglary). - **Example 2**: In Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland [1978] 1 WLR 1350, the accomplice drove a car for members of an illegal organisation who were planning a terrorist attack at a pub. Although the accomplice did not know the exact method (bomb, gun, etc.), the House of Lords held that the accomplice was liable as they knew a range of offences (including bombing) might take place. **Summary**: An accomplice will be guilty if they know the type of crime the principal intends to commit (Bainbridge), or if they know the offence will be one of a limited range of offences (Maxwell).

Question 28

Can an accomplice be guilty of a different offence than the principal based on their mens rea?

Answer 28

Yes, an accomplice may be guilty of a **more or less serious offence** than the principal, depending on their own level of **mens rea.** This applies when the principal commits the **same actus reus** (AR) as the accomplice, but with a **different mens rea (MR).** **Example**: - In R v Gilmour [2000] 2 Cr App R 407, the defendant drove the principals to a house where they threw a petrol bomb. - The principals intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm (murder), but Gilmour only believed they were going to cause criminal damage. - Gilmour was initially convicted as an accomplice to murder, but his conviction was overturned and replaced with manslaughter because his mens rea was different from the principal’s. **Summary**: - An accomplice is guilty of the offence that matches their own mens rea. - This principle applies in cases where the actus reus is the same, but the mens rea differs, such as in murder/manslaughter or s18/s20 assaults.

Question 29

How is the liability of an accomplice determined when the principal goes beyond the original plan in a joint venture?

Answer 29

In a joint venture, two or more participants set out to commit one offence, but during the course of the crime, the principal may commit a different crime. Whether the accomplice remains liable for the principal’s acts and what mens rea is required to be guilty as an accomplice to the new offence depends on: - What was in the accomplice's mind at the time and whether they intended that the new offence would be committed. - The accomplice must intend to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the new offence. - Foresight that the new offence may occur is only evidence of intent but is not sufficient to establish intent by itself.

Question 30

How does the foresight of a new offence by the accomplice impact their liability?

Answer 30

If the accomplice **foresaw** that, during the course of committing the planned offence, the principal might commit a different crime, this may provide evidence that the accomplice intended for the new crime to occur. - However, **foresight** alone does not establish intent. It is just evidence from which the jury could infer intent. - If the accomplice **agreed on the common purpose** to commit Crime A, but foresaw the principal might commit Crime B in the course of committing Crime A, it may be appropriate for the jury to conclude that the accomplice intended for Crime B to be committed, should the situation arise. **Example**: If defendants plan a **bank robbery**, and some are armed, while they may hope not to use their weapons, the jury could infer they intended to use them if resistance was encountered. If a bank employee is shot, the principal is guilty of murder and the accomplice could be held liable for the same offence. Similarly, if a group of young men faces a rival group and hopes they will leave peacefully, but it is reasonable to infer that they are prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm should a fight ensue, all the gang members may be liable as accomplices for assault causing grievous bodily harm.

Question 31

How does the accomplice's knowledge of the principal's tendencies affect their liability when violence escalates?

Answer 31

If the accomplice **intended** that an assault would take place, but the violence escalates and leads to the **victim’s death**, the accomplice’s liability will depend on: - The accomplice's **knowledge** of the principal’s tendencies, including if they knew the principal carried a weapon or had a history of violence. - If the accomplice was aware the principal carried a knife and had a history of violence, this may provide **evidence of intent** for the death. - If the accomplice had no knowledge of the principal’s violent tendencies, they may be acquitted of the death, but still be liable for a lesser offence like **manslaughter**. **Example**: If an accomplice knew the principal carried a knife for self-defence (e.g., in a violent area), but did not anticipate the use of the knife in the commission of the crime, the accomplice may not be guilty of murder. However, the jury may still conclude that the accomplice was not guilty of the new crime (e.g., robbery with violence) based on the lack of intent.

Question 32

What is required for an accomplice to be liable for a new crime when the principal exceeds the scope of the plan?

Answer 32

To be guilty as an accomplice to a **new crime** committed by the principal, the accomplice must: - **Intend** to assist or encourage the principal in the new offence. - If the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan, the accomplice’s liability depends on whether they had the **intent** that the new offence would be committed. - **Foresight** that the principal might commit a different crime is only evidence of intent but does not prove intent on its own. **Example**: - If Akeju and Theo plan to steal a wallet, and Theo distracts the victim while Akeju removes the wallet, they are both guilty of theft. - However, if Akeju pulls out a knife and cuts the victim, Akeju commits robbery. Theo’s liability for this new crime depends on his foresight of Akeju's actions. - If Theo knew Akeju carried the knife but thought it was for self-defence, he may not be guilty of the robbery as his foresight alone doesn’t establish intent. The jury may decide Theo is not guilty of the robbery despite knowing about the knife.

Question 33

Provide a summary of the mens rea of accomplice liability.

Answer 33

Mens Rea for Accomplice Liability involves two key elements: - 1st Limb: The accomplice (A) must intend to do the act or say the words that assist in the commission of the crime. - 2nd Limb: The accomplice must have knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the crime. In situations where the principal (PO) goes beyond the scope of the original plan: - The accomplice must intend to assist or encourage the principal in the new offence. - Foresight of what the principal might do is considered evidence of intent, but it does not alone prove intent. The accomplice may still be liable as an accomplice to the new crime if: - They know the type of crime the principal will commit, but not the exact details. - They know the offence will fall within a limited range. If the principal commits an act as agreed but with a different mens rea to that intended by the accomplice, the accomplice is guilty of the crime that matches their own mens rea. If the accomplice intended for the principal to act with the mens rea of the crime, they may be found guilty as an accomplice to that specific crime.

Question 34

What is the general principle regarding withdrawal from a joint criminal venture, and how does it affect liability for the principal's actions?

Answer 34

A defendant can withdraw from a joint criminal venture to escape liability for what the principal goes on to do, but only if the withdrawal is **effective**. The effectiveness of the withdrawal depends on: - The **stage** at which the defendant attempts to withdraw. - The **method** by which they communicate their withdrawal. Whether the withdrawal is effective is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Case law suggests that the accomplice must try to negate whatever they originally did to assist the principal in the offence.

Question 35

What are the requirements for effective withdrawal before the offence has been committed?

Answer 35

If the defendant has a change of heart before the offence takes place, they may withdraw by communicating their withdrawal. This communication must be: - **Timely** (before the offence takes place). - **Unequivocal** (clear and without ambiguity). **Example**: In R v Grundy (1977), Grundy provided burglars with information six weeks before the burglary. Two weeks before it took place, he tried to persuade them not to commit the offence. The Court of Appeal ruled that this was evidence of effective withdrawal and allowed the matter to go to the jury. **Important**: Simply failing to show up at the scene of the planned crime does not amount to an unequivocal communication of withdrawal. **Example**: Bella agrees to help Quentin rob a supermarket, providing him with details about when the cash will be collected and a key to access the premises. After changing her mind, she attempts to persuade Quentin not to go ahead with the robbery. For Bella to effectively withdraw, she would need to: Try to persuade Quentin not to commit the robbery (which she did). Possibly do more, such as: - Get the key back from him. - Warn her employers, especially since she is the manager of the supermarket. - Inform the police about the planned robbery.

Question 36

What is required for effective withdrawal during the commission of the offence?

Answer 36

Where the defendant attempts to withdraw after the offence has begun, they must do more than simply communicate their intention to withdraw. **Example**: In R v Becerra (1976), the defendant shouted to his co-offender that they should leave the scene of the burglary. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction as an accomplice to murder, deciding his actions were not an effective withdrawal. To effectively withdraw at this stage, the defendant must **physically intervene** to stop or prevent the offence, such as: - Grabbing the knife from the principal offender. - Standing in front of the victim to protect them from harm.

Question 37

Provide a summary of withdrawal in accomplice liability.

Answer 37

The law in relation to withdrawal from the joint venture may be summarised as follows: * Whether there has been an effective withdrawal will depend upon the circumstances of each case. * Words alone may suffice where the withdrawal takes place before the offence, unless physical assistance has also been given. * Where the withdrawal takes place during the commission of the crime, simply urging the principal to leave and departing from the scene are not sufficient to be effective; some form of physical intervention may be required. * In all cases, it is a question of fact for the jury to determine if the accused has withdrawn from the common plan.

Question 38

Provide a summary of parties of a crime.

Answer 38

When assessing criminal liability, the starting point is to identify the principal offender(s), namely those who commit the substantive offence with the appropriate mens rea. The actus reus of accomplice liability is established by proof that the defendant aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence. - This usually involves physical or verbal advice or assistance before or at the time of the offence. - Any situation where an individual becomes involved only after the principal offence has been committed will not attract accomplice liability. To convict someone as an accomplice, mens rea must also be proved, specifically that the defendant: - Intended to do the act or say the words that assisted or encouraged; and - Had knowledge of all the circumstances of the principal offence within their contemplation. The accomplice does not need to know (or intend) the specific crime that the principal commits or the exact details. However, they must be aware of the type of offence or that it is within a limited range of possible offences. If the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan, the accomplice must intend to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the ‘new’ offence. Foresight of what the principal might do is evidence of such intent but no more. Depending upon the level of mens rea of the parties, the principal may be convicted of a different offence to that of the accomplice. A person can be convicted as an accomplice notwithstanding the fact that the principal is acquitted (or is not charged). A person may avoid accomplice liability if they have withdrawn from the joint venture but only if it is ‘effective’; and this will depend upon the participation of the defendant and the stage at which they seek to withdraw.