Complicity Flashcards
(67 cards)
1
Q
R v Macklin and Murphy (1838)
A
2
Q
R v Michael (1840)
A
3
Q
R v Cogan & Leak [1976]
A
4
Q
R v Giannetto [1997]
A
5
Q
R v Banfield [2013]
A
6
Q
R v Jogee [2016]
A
- D had been vocally encouraging P whilst he murdered V
- judge made direction that liability as an accessory applies to D if he participated in the attack while realising that P might stab V whilst intending to cause really serious harm
- Court held that in order to prove accessorial liability -> not sufficient to only prove MR but need AR as well
- AR: need to prove that accessory assisted or encouraged P
- MR: need to prove that accessory intended to so assist / encourage P
- mere foresight that P might commit an offence is not enough for MR of accessory liability
- conviction quashed
- doesn’t matter if P ignores the encouragement -> it is enough that D has given it
7
Q
R v Bryce [2004]
A
- D drove P to place to enable P to kill V
- P killed V after 12 hour delay and after talking with another party
- D charged with murder as P’s accomplice
- CACD -> despite other contributory facts, D’s acts provided assistance
- accessory only needs to have foresight of the possibility and not certainty of the principal offence being committed
8
Q
R v AIQ [2024]
A
P can be acquitted and D can still be liable as secondary when P’s acquittal doesn’t mean the offence didn’t occur
9
Q
R v Mendez and Thompson [2010]
A
- house party in Sheffield
- some people gatecrashed party and stole gaming device
- owners of house give chase -> one of the chasers uses a weapon to stab one of the gatecrashers -> D was some way behind but was clearly encouraging
- court held that D needs to have caused or materially contributed to principal offence
this is under joint enterprise -> no longer law
10
Q
R v Stringer [2011]
not on sheet
A
- acknowledged that accessory need not ‘cause’ Principal to commit the offence -> in a causation sense
- Toulson LJ suggests that accessory’s conduct has to have some relevance to commission of principal offence -> has to be a ‘connectin link’ -> less controversial
11
Q
R v Kennedy No 2 [2007]
A
- break in the chain of causation -> Kennedy not guilty of being an accessory
12
Q
R v Rowe [2022]
A
13
Q
State v Tally (1894)
A
14
Q
R v Coney (1882)
A
15
Q
R v Calhaem [1985]
A
- Once encouragement or assistance is proved to have been given, the prosecution does not have to go so far as to prove that it had a positive effect on D1’s conduct or on the outcome
16
Q
R v Rowe [2022]
A
17
Q
A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975]
A
18
Q
Wilcox v Jeffrey [1951]
A
19
Q
Tuck v Robson [1970]
A
20
Q
R v Webster [2006]
A
21
Q
Robinson v The Queen [2011]
A
22
Q
NCB v Gamble [1959]
A
23
Q
Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland [1975]
A
24
Q
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986]
A
25
R v Anwar [2016]
26
R v Crilly [2018]
27
R v Brown [2017]
28
R v Johnson [2016]
29
R v Seed [2024]
30
Miller [2016]
31
Chan Kam Shing [2016]
32
Johnson v Youden [1950]
33
Carter v Richardson [1974]
34
Blakely and Sutton v Chief Constable of West Mercia [1991]
35
R v Bainbridge [1960]
36
DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978]
37
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
38
R v Bourne (1952)
39
R v Cogan & Leak [1976]
40
R v Millward [1994]
41
Thornton v Mitchell [1940]
42
R v Loukes [1996]
43
R v Richards [1974]
44
R v Howe [1987]
45
R v Yemoh [2009]
46
R v BHV [2022]
47
R v Clarkson [1971]
48
The Queen v Saunders & Archer (1575)
49
R v Anderson and Morris [1966]
50
R v Perman [1996]
51
R v Gnango [2012]
52
R v Rahman [2009]
53
R v English [1999]
54
R v Tas [2018]
55
R v Grant [2021]
56
R v Rafferty [2007]
57
R v Grundy [1977]
58
R v Becerra (1976)
59
R v O’Flaherty [2004]
60
R v Rajakumar [2014]
61
R v Mitchell [2009]
62
The Queen v Tyrrell [1894]
63
R v Morgan [2021]
64
R v ARU [2024]
65
R v Brown [1994]
66
Garrett v Arthur Churchill (Glass) Ltd [1970]
67
Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985]
