accessorial liability Flashcards
(29 cards)
AR of secondary party liability
aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence
MR of secondary party liability
intention to commit AR; knowledge of essential matters which constitute the offence.
definition of terms aid, abet, counsel and procure
AG’s Ref No 1 of 1975
what is aiding and when does it occur
helping, assisting, supporting; occurs before or during the offence
driving the principal to the crime scene - bomb in a pub
aiding - Maxwell [1978]
supplying information/ equipment which helps D commit the offence - oxygen cutting equipment
Brainbridge [1960]
what is abetting and when can it occur
encouraging or inciting the principal; at the time of the offence - requires presence at scene
mere presence at a crime scene is not enough - a positive act is required
R v Coney [1882] - illegal prize fight
it must be proven that the defendants wilfully encouraged the offence- 18yr old girl; rape/ roommate ; drug dealer
Clarkson & Carroll [1971] - they were standing outside the room’ Bland [1988]
an example of a spectator being held guilty of aiding and abetting a crime - contrasting with the principal of wilful encouragement
Wilcox v Jeffery [1951] - entered country illegally to play the saxophone. D went to watch and bought a ticket - presence and encouragement was established .
a defendant can aid or abet an offence through inactivity if he/she is in a position of control or authority
Tuck v Robson [1970]
what is counselling and when does it occur
advising, soliciting, encouraging before the principal offence - doesn’t need to be present at crime scene
there must be some casual connection between the act of the secondary party and the commission of the offence
Bryce [2004]
what is procuring and when does it occur
to produce by endeavour - taking the appropriate steps to produce a certain result; occurs before the offence§
secretly laced friend’s drink with alcohol when she had to drive later that night
AG’s ref no 1 of 1975
is a casual link required for procuring
yes
letting overweight lorry leave the depot will fulfil the MR for s.8 offence
national coal board v gamble [1959]
D must foresee the likelihood that the principal would commit the AR of the offence as regards to MR
Webster [2006]
if principal does not perform the AR of the offence, no accessorial liability may arise
Thornton v Mitchell [1940]
the decision which limited the scope of the doctrine of joint enterprise
R v Jogee [2016]
what was the wrong turn in the law proclaiming
D2’s foresight equates to intention- mens rea
if principal lacks the MR of an offence , accessorial liability may still arise
Cogan and Leak [1975] rape case; Milward [1994] old offence of killing through reckless driving
withdrawal before the offence - what is to be done?
withdrawal must be communicated - Whitefield [1984], otherwise simply not turning up is no good Rook [1993]
withdrawal at the scene of a crime
must do more than simply communicate i.e. countermand - Becerra and Cooper [1976] - not just say c’mon lets go
