Accomplice Liability: Complicity

Question 1

where does the foundation of accomplice liability stem from?

Answer 1

Accessories abd Abettors Act 1861
‘whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence shall be liable to be tried… and punished as a principal offender’

Question 2

what is meant by ‘aid and abet’?

what is meant by ‘procure’?

Answer 2

assist or encourage

produce by effort

Question 3

what must the offence be in order to produce accomplice liability?

Answer 3

must be indictable

Question 4

what can an assisting defendant be convicted of?

Answer 4

both the crime that was committed and the offence of assisting end encouraging - the inchoate offence

Question 5

what occurs if the principal offender is never convicted?

Answer 5

accomplice can still be tried and convicted

enough that they were complicit and there is proof that the crime occurred

Question 6

what is required to convict the complicit party of the principal offence?

’’ inchoate offence?

Answer 6

causal impact of D assisting the principal offender

any form of encouragement, no requirement for physical involvement

Question 7

what are the 2 elements required to prove complicity in crimes without a fault element?

Answer 7

1. intention to assist or encourage the principal offender’s conduct
2. appreciate that the essential elements of the principal offender’s offence might occur

Question 8

what type of intent is not sufficient to prove complicity?

Answer 8

a general criminal intent

MUST BE an intent directed towards the specific crime

Question 9

what case established that D must know the essential elements of the crime the principal offender was intending to commit in order to be complicit?

Answer 9

R v Bainbridge 1960
D knew that cutting equipment was at least likely to do something illegal ‘at any rate for the purpose of breaking and entering premises’

Question 10

what case established that D can be complicit in a crime where there was an obvious list of crimes that the principal offender was going to commit?

Answer 10

Maxwell 1978

D saw P was heavily armed and drove P to a pub nonetheless
P was either going to plant a bomb, shoot someone or commit a robbery

Question 11

what is the leading case for proving complicity in crimes with a fault element?

Answer 11

Jogee 2016

Question 12

what is required to prove complicity in crimes with a fault element, under Jogee 2016?

Answer 12

1. intention to assist/ encourage the principal offender
2. also have the same intention/ fault element required to commit the offences
   ex// same intention as P to kill V

Question 13

how did Jogee replace NCB v Gamble in relation to intention for fault element/specific intent crimes?

Answer 13

cannot be liable for a crime that involves the fault element of the crime if one is disinterested in the outcome
D must have an intention for P to fulfil the aim of committing the offence - the same intention

Question 14

when will D be found to not have the same fault element as P in a crime of specific intent?

Answer 14

Ps violence was entirely unconnected with the former plan with D

P has stepped out of the cope of Ds connection

Question 15

when can D be convicted of a murder, committed by P, as an accessory?

Answer 15

ONLY if D intended for the killing also

Question 16

what did Jogee establish would be the liability of D if they intended for P to do less than kill V, but P killed them nonetheless?

Answer 16

D can be found to have the elements for manslaughter

intending assault/battery and death recklessly occurred

Question 17

what is ‘joint enterprise’ JE liability?

Answer 17

where the two defendants are engaged in a joint enterprise in the commission of the criminal conduct - form of agreements between the party meaning that the other is liable

Question 18

what were the facts of Jogee 2016?

what was the issue?
under the Chang Wing-Siu v The Queen 1985 test

Answer 18

original plan between D and P was to ‘sort V out’ and intimidate
D had engaged in threatening behaviour, waving around a bottle
P then went on to grab a knife and stab V to death

whether D and P were engaged in a JE when the killing occurred
whether D merely encouraged P, or instead assisted

Question 19

how was the test in Chan Wing-Siu replaced?

what did the jury find?

Answer 19

whether D had the same intention as P, which was to kill V

did not have same intention to kill V, instead had intention to attack
therefore, D liable for manslaughter due to the recklessness of assisting the attack

Question 20

what case found D to be liable for murder due to JE?

how did Jogee 2016 overrule this?

Answer 20

Rook 1993
D still liable for murder, despite not being present when murder took place, as had not withdrawn from JE as a matter of law

JE not a consideration in Jogee - instead a consideration of actual/specific intent

Question 21

how does innocent agency distinguish from complicity?

Answer 21

D is unaware of the fact that P has told them to commit a crime, so they are not being complicit in a crime as they are not aware one is being committed

ex// P telling D to bring them their bag they left in a shop, when it is not really Ps bag, but D is unaware of this

Question 22

what is semi-innocent agency?

Answer 22

where D is aware of crime P wants them to commit, but D does not have sufficient power to resist from committing this crime

ex// P tells D to go and get someone’s bag and bring it to them, P threatens to kill D if they don’t

Question 23

what is ‘joint-principalship’?

Answer 23

where D1 and D2 actions combined constitute a crime
neither complicit/ both liable as ‘joint principals’

ex// D1 strikes V while D2 takes Vs bag - together constitute a robbery

Question 24

how may one be guilty of committing an inchoate offence?

assisting

encouragement

Answer 24

D may be guilty of assisting, even if P does not use their assistance
ex// D unlocking a door for P to enter by, but P uses a different entrance

D may be guilty of encouragement, even if P had already decided on committing the offence ex// decided already to kill V

NO CAUSAL LINK REQUIRED

Question 25

what case highlighted inchoate liability despite the lack of a causal link between Ds encouragement and Ps act of killing V?

Answer 25

R v Calhaem 1985 | no need for a causal link / only requirement that D had suggested it in the past

Question 26

what happened in AG Ref (No1) 1975 in relation to procuring? (strict liability offence) what did the law commission suggest in response?

Answer 26

D had spiked Ps drink P drove drunk D had not caused P to commit the crime as P had still driven after drinking because drink driving is a strict liability offence, P could not claim they were an innocent party creation of an offence of 'causing a no-fault offence' ex// drink driving, speeding, selling alcohol to underage persons

Question 27

what was another consideration for liability of D for Ps crime pre-Jogee in R v ABCD 2010?

Answer 27

foreseeability of P committing the act and the continuation with assisting/encouraging P nonetheless

Question 28

what is parasitic JE?

Answer 28

pre-jogee principle if D intended crime a, and crime b was foreseeable, then D is also liable for crime b committed by P used in Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen 1985

Question 29

why did the HC Justice Committee re-evaluate the use of JE and parasitic JE in 2014?

Answer 29

1. foresight doctrine was too wide | 2. public policy concerns about actual intention

Question 30

what happened in English 1999? why was D not liable for the killing of V as a complicit party?

Answer 30

D and P went, armed with wooden rods, to beat up a police officer P also brought a knife and stabbed and killed V D not liable because their was a 'fundamental difference' between what D anticipated and what P did

Question 31

how did Rahman 2008 develop the principle in English 1999? why could this be problematic?

Answer 31

also considered the fact that D did not anticipate the weapon that P produced and used to kill V D had anticipated murder, the weapon does not necessarily matter, the means by which the murder occurred

Question 32

what other case was similar to Rahman 2008? why was D held as liable?

Answer 32

R v Carpenter 2011 D not aware that P would use a knife to kill in a pre-arranged fight D had knowledge that P was possessing the knife, not enough that D didn't assume P would intentionally kill V using the knife

Question 33

what was held at para 77 in Jogee? | reason for requiring specific intent by D for the crime committed by P

Answer 33

'guilt of crime by association has no proper part in the common law'

Question 34

what case established that one does not have to do the physical act in order for D to be found as complicit? why?

Answer 34

R v Giannetto 1997 'it is the intention of the defendant that counts' D had intended for P to kill his wife by paying P to do so

Question 35

what happened in R v Clarkson 1971? what did it clarify in regard to the requirements of encouragement?

Answer 35

Ds convicted of aiding/abetting the conviction of 3 rapes they had sat inside the room while the rapes were being committed not enough that 'presence has given encouragement' 'must be proved that the accused intended to give encouragement; that he wilfully encouraged'

Question 36

what was established in Bercerra 1975 as necessary in order to break JE?

Answer 36

something more than a mere mental change of intention timely communication of intention to abandon the common purpose unequivocal notice

Question 37

what were the facts of Gnango 2011? why was D found liable for Vs death?

Answer 37

D and P agreed to a public shoot out P went to shoot D but missed and shot V issue: whether D was liable for killing V also had agreed to the public shoot out had agreed to the risk of shooting V themselves shoot out had encouraged Ps killing of V by continuing shooting