Accomplice Liability

Question 1

What is the focus of criminal liability in relation to secondary participation?

Answer 1

The focus is on individuals who encourage or assist in committing a crime without directly committing the act themselves.

These individuals are referred to as accomplices.

Question 2

What are the terms used to describe those who assist in a crime?

Answer 2

Accomplices, accessories, or secondary parties.

The textbook refers to them specifically as accomplices.

Question 3

Who is considered a principal offender?

Answer 3

The person who commits the actus reus elements of a substantive criminal offence.

Co-principals are individuals who commit an offence together.

Question 4

What does the Accessories and Abettors Act (AAA) 1861 state about accomplices?

Answer 4

Those who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence shall be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

This emphasizes that accomplices are as culpable as the principal offender.

Question 5

What must be established against a defendant to convict them as an accomplice?

Answer 5

Both actus reus and mens rea.

Actus reus typically involves clear actions, while mens rea can be more complex.

Question 6

What are the four ways an accomplice can satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability?

Answer 6

• Aiding
• Abetting
• Counselling
• Procuring

Each term has a distinct legal meaning.

Question 7

What does ‘aiding’ involve in the context of accomplice liability?

Answer 7

Physically helping, assisting or supporting the principal offender to commit the crime.

Aiding typically occurs at or before the commission of the offence.

Question 8

What is the difference between ‘abetting’ and ‘counselling’?

Answer 8

‘Abetting’ requires encouraging the principal during the crime, while ‘counselling’ involves instigating or encouraging before the crime occurs.

Examples of abetting include shouting encouragement during an assault.

Question 9

What does ‘procuring’ mean in relation to accomplice liability?

Answer 9

To produce by endeavour, meaning the accomplice takes steps to bring about the offence.

This usually requires the accomplice to actually cause the crime.

Question 10

What is the significance of mere presence at the scene of a crime?

Answer 10

Mere presence is generally not sufficient for accomplice liability unless there is prior arrangement or encouragement at the scene.

Case law has established that passive presence does not constitute liability.

Question 11

Under what circumstances can silence or inaction lead to accomplice liability?

Answer 11

When there is a duty to act or control the actions of the principal offender.

Cases have shown that failing to intervene can amount to encouragement.

Question 12

What is the relationship between the principal and the accomplice in establishing liability?

Answer 12

There must be a link or awareness of the assistance provided by the accomplice to the principal.

However, the prosecution usually finds it easy to establish this link.

Question 13

Fill in the blank: An accomplice may satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability by _______.

Answer 13

aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.

Question 14

True or False: An accomplice can only be charged with the same offence if they physically commit the crime.

Answer 14

False.

Accomplices can be charged even if they did not physically commit the crime.

Question 15

What is the relationship between principal offenders and accomplices in terms of trial and sentence?

Answer 15

Accomplices are treated in the same way as principal offenders as far as trial and sentence are concerned.

Question 16

Is a link required between the principal and accomplice for establishing accomplice liability?

Answer 16

In most cases, a mental link or contact between principal and accomplice is not required, especially in instances of procurement.

Question 17

What did Lord Widgery CJ state about the mental link between principal and accomplice?

Answer 17

He expressed that there would usually be a mental link between principal and accomplice in cases of aiding, abetting, or counselling.

Question 18

In cases of procurement, what does procuring mean?

Answer 18

Procuring means ‘producing by endeavour’ or taking steps to ensure that a crime happens.

Question 19

In the example of Padraig and Dearbhla, what role did Dearbhla play?

Answer 19

Dearbhla aided Padraig by tripping up a police officer, allowing Padraig to complete the act of criminal damage.

Question 20

In cases of counselling and abetting, what is required between the principal and accomplice?

Answer 20

There must be a meeting of minds where the principal is aware of the encouragement or advice.

Question 21

What was the outcome of R v Calhaem regarding the defendant’s liability?

Answer 21

The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal, confirming that she was an accomplice to murder despite the principal’s potential lack of intention.

Question 22

Is a causal link required in cases of aiding?

Answer 22

No, a causal link is not required in cases of aiding.

Question 23

What must be established for an accomplice to be convicted?

Answer 23

The actus reus of the principal offence must be committed.

Question 24

Can an accomplice be convicted if the principal is acquitted?

Answer 24

Yes, an accomplice may still be convicted even if the principal has a specific defence that leads to their acquittal.

Question 25

What is an innocent agent in criminal law?

Answer 25

An innocent agent is someone who commits the actus reus of a crime but is not guilty due to lack of mens rea or specific defence.

Question 26

In R v Cogan and Leak, what role did L play?

Answer 26

L was convicted as an accomplice to rape for procuring the offence, even though C was acquitted.

Question 27

What is the mens rea of accomplice liability?

Answer 27

It involves the intention to assist and knowledge of the circumstances of the principal offence.

Question 28

What did Devlin J state regarding the mens rea of an accomplice?

Answer 28

The mens rea is established if the defendant deliberately does an act that amounts to encouragement, regardless of their intent for the crime to occur.

Question 29

In National Coal Board v Gamble, what was the key element of mens rea discussed?

Answer 29

The key element was the intention to aid and knowledge of the circumstances.

Question 30

What did Lord Parker CJ conclude in Garrett v Arthur Churchill regarding contractual obligations?

Answer 30

Criminal law takes precedence over civil law, and a defendant should refuse to comply with a contract if it assists in committing a crime.

Question 31

True or False: A principal must be aware of an accomplice's assistance for the accomplice to be liable.

Answer 31

False, in aiding, the principal may not even know of the assistance.

Question 32

Fill in the blank: In cases of ________, there is no necessity for a mental link but a causal link is required.

Answer 32

Procurement

Question 33

What takes precedence, criminal law or civil law, when a contractual obligation would assist in a crime?

Answer 33

Criminal law takes precedence over civil law.

Question 34

What must be shown for a person to be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime according to Johnson v Youden?

Answer 34

They must know 'the essential matters which constitute that offence.'

Question 35

Fill in the blank: To be guilty of an offence as an accomplice, it must be shown that the defendant intended to do the act which _______.

Answer 35

assisted.

Question 36

In R v Craig and Bentley, who was convicted as an accomplice to murder?

Answer 36

Derek Bentley.

Question 37

What was the basis for Bentley's conviction as an accomplice in the murder case?

Answer 37

The killing amounted to a joint enterprise.

Question 38

What does the actus reus of accomplice liability require?

Answer 38

That the accomplice aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence.

Question 39

What must an accomplice have within their contemplation to incur liability?

Answer 39

All the circumstances that make the principal’s conduct criminal.

Question 40

True or False: Ignorance of the law is a defense for an accomplice.

Answer 40

False.

Question 41

What is the significance of the case Callow v Tillstone regarding strict liability?

Answer 41

The shopkeeper was convicted despite being diligent, as strict liability does not require mens rea.

Question 42

What level of knowledge must an accomplice have about the crime being committed?

Answer 42

They must know a 'crime of the type in question was intended.'

Question 43

In R v Bainbridge, what was the defendant's knowledge regarding the crime?

Answer 43

He was aware that the equipment was for breaking into some premises.

Question 44

What was the outcome of Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland regarding the defendant's knowledge?

Answer 44

The defendant knew a 'military' operation was to take place.

Question 45

What must be established for accomplice liability to exist?

Answer 45

The actus reus of the principal offence must be committed.

Question 46

Fill in the blank: If a person suggests killing someone but the suggestion is ignored, there can be no liability as an accomplice to _______.

Answer 46

murder.

Question 47

In R v Howe, what was the example used to illustrate the concept of mens rea?

Answer 47

Ben handed a gun to Alex, believing it was loaded with blanks.

Question 48

What is the significance of the case R v Gilmour regarding accomplice liability?

Answer 48

Gilmour believed the principals were going to cause criminal damage, not murder.

Question 49

How does the mens rea of an accomplice affect their liability if the principal offender has a different mens rea?

Answer 49

The accomplice's liability is based on their own level of mens rea.

Question 50

What is the outcome for an accomplice if they have a higher mens rea than the principal?

Answer 50

They can be convicted of a more serious offence than the principal.

Question 51

What must be proven for an accomplice to be liable for a lesser offence committed by the principal?

Answer 51

The actus reus of the relevant offence must be committed.

Question 52

In the example involving Abu and Presley, what was the nature of Abu's liability?

Answer 52

He was liable as an accomplice to the offence under s 47 of the OAPA 1861.

Question 53

What happens if the principal commits grievous bodily harm but the accomplice only intended minor harm?

Answer 53

The accomplice can still be liable for the more serious offence if the actus reus is present.

Question 54

Fill in the blank: For an accomplice to be liable, they must have knowledge of the circumstances that make the principal’s conduct _______.

Answer 54

criminal.

Question 55

What is the mens rea of an accomplice in relation to the principal offender?

Answer 55

An accomplice has a lower mens rea than the principal offender.

Question 56

In R v Gilmour, what was the outcome for Gilmour as an accomplice?

Answer 56

Gilmour's conviction as an accomplice was overturned and replaced with one for manslaughter.

Question 57

What does the case of R v Jogee clarify about accomplice liability?

Answer 57

Foresight of a new offence is evidence of intent, not synonymous with intent to assist.

Question 58

Fill in the blank: An accomplice may be guilty of a more or less serious offence than the principal based on their own level of _______.

Answer 58

[mens rea]

Question 59

What must be evaluated to determine an accomplice's liability when the principal goes beyond the plan?

Answer 59

What was going on in the accomplice’s mind at the time of the crime.

Question 60

True or False: An accomplice is automatically liable for any crime committed by the principal offender.

Answer 60

False

Question 61

What are the two examples given by judges to illustrate accomplice liability in relation to a common purpose?

Answer 61

* Armed bank robbery where a bank employee is shot * A group of young men facing down a rival group intending to inflict grievous bodily harm

Question 62

What is required for an accomplice to be liable if violence escalates and results in a victim's death?

Answer 62

The accomplice's own mens rea and awareness of the principal's violent history.

Question 63

In the example of Delilah and Andrea, what crime are both guilty of?

Answer 63

Theft

Question 64

What happens if Delilah departs from the plan and injures the victim with a knife?

Answer 64

Delilah becomes the principal to the offence of robbery, but Andrea’s liability as an accomplice may depend on her foresight.

Question 65

What does R v Becerra state about effective withdrawal from a crime?

Answer 65

Timely communication of the intention to abandon the common purpose is essential.

Question 66

What is the significance of physical intervention for effective withdrawal at the scene of a crime?

Answer 66

It may be necessary to prevent the crime from occurring.

Question 67

What must Bella do to effectively withdraw from the robbery plan with Quentin?

Answer 67

She must communicate her withdrawal and may need to take further actions like retrieving the key.

Question 68

Who is eligible to be an accomplice in a crime?

Answer 68

Anyone above the age of criminal responsibility (10 years or more) and fit to stand trial.

Question 69

In R v Tyrrell, why was Tyrrell's conviction as an accomplice quashed?

Answer 69

The offence committed was against her, making her unlikely to face liability.

Question 70

What is the general rule regarding the defences available to accomplices?

Answer 70

Accomplices have the same general defences available to them as do principal offenders.

Question 71

In which case was the conviction of an accomplice quashed due to the nature of the offence?

Answer 71

R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710.

Question 72

Why was Tyrrell's conviction quashed?

Answer 72

The offence was designed to protect Tyrrell as she was a girl under the age of 16.

Question 73

True or False: The rule in Tyrrell’s case protects all young girls charged as accomplices.

Answer 73

False.

Question 74

Who is considered a principal offender in the example involving Serena, Albert, and Victoria?

Answer 74

Albert is a principal offender under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Question 75

Why is Victoria not charged as an accomplice to Albert’s offence?

Answer 75

Victoria is considered the victim in the eyes of the law.

Question 76

Why is Serena considered an accomplice in the example with Albert and Victoria?

Answer 76

Serena encouraged Albert to commit the offence.

Question 77

What is the starting point for assessing criminal liability?

Answer 77

Distinguish between principal offender(s) and any accomplices.

Question 78

What constitutes the actus reus of accomplice liability?

Answer 78

Proof that the defendant aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence.

Question 79

What must be proved in relation to mens rea to convict someone as an accomplice?

Answer 79

The defendant intended to assist or encourage and had all circumstances of the principal offence within their contemplation.

Question 80

Fill in the blank: The accomplice need not know or intend the specific type of crime that the principal commits; it is enough if the offence is within the range of possible offences that the accomplice _______.

Answer 80

intentionally assisted or encouraged.

Question 81

According to R v Howe [1987], what may happen regarding the principal's and accomplice's offences?

Answer 81

The principal may be convicted of a different offence than that of the accomplice.

Question 82

What does it mean if the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan?

Answer 82

The accomplice must intend to assist or encourage the principal in the commission of the 'new' offence.

Question 83

Can a person be convicted as an accomplice if the principal is acquitted?

Answer 83

Yes.

Question 84

What must a person do to avoid accomplice liability after agreeing to a joint plan?

Answer 84

They must effectively withdraw from the plan.

Question 85

In the scenario involving Andrew, Benny, and Cathy, who are the principal offenders for criminal damage?

Answer 85

Andrew and Benny.

Question 86

What is Cathy's role regarding the criminal damage committed?

Answer 86

Cathy is an accomplice to criminal damage.

Question 87

What must Andrew prove to establish mens rea under section 18 for the assault on the gamekeeper?

Answer 87

He intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 88

If Andrew lacks mens rea for a section 20 offence, what lesser offence might he be guilty of?

Answer 88

An offence under section 47 of the OAPA 1861.

Question 89

Why might Benny be considered an accomplice to the assault on the gamekeeper?

Answer 89

He was with Andrew and could be said to have encouraged him by his presence.

Question 90

Why is Cathy not an accomplice to the assault on the gamekeeper?

Answer 90

There is no evidence that she knew Andrew had a gun.

Question 91

What are the learning outcomes of the chapter?

Answer 91

Appreciate criminal liability's extension, explain secondary participation law, understand mens rea requirements.