Complicity Flashcards
(20 cards)
what is complicity
derivative liability for substantial involvement in a crime committed by a principal offender- secondary party liable as if they were the principal
- involved primary and secondary(accessory) parties
what does complicity require
D’s AR: aid, abet, counsel or procure
P’s AR+MR
what is the principal party
causes AR with necessary MR
r v Giannetto (1997)
D threatened to kill wife and hired 3rd party to kill her- was killed but unclear who killed her
as long as jury seen husband or 3rd party killed wife D was either principle or accomplice and was liable for murder
what is the secondary party
assists or encourages principal without directly causing AR - held liable if AR assists encourages or procures
R v Bryce (2004)
drove P to place to kill V and didn’t kill to 12 hrs later- held D was complicit and did something to assist P despite time delay and acts in between
what are the definitions of
Aid
abet
counsel
-Aid- assist
-abet- encourage
-counsel- encourage merged with abetting at common law - requires D’s conduct to be capable of assisting or encouraging P’s offence
what does it mean to procure
causing offence, requires full causation: excludes innocent agents
Elaborate on omissions
liability arises where D omits conduct capable of assisting or encouraging due to a breach of duty
r v clarkson (1971)
D stood by while woman was raped- no evidence of participation or encouragement - convicted of aid and abet- on appeal convictions were quashed
r v gaunt (2003)
Employee racially abused customer but D didn’t do anything- complicit by omission
Tuck v Robson (1970)
D was landlord allowing clients to drink after hours - held D had powers to stop them drinking but didn’t do so- complicit by omission
elaborate on connection to principal offence
-Assisting- Any contribution suffices doesn’t need to be substantial
-encouraging- must communicate encouragement to principal
-procuring- strict causation independent of other forms
elaborate on innocent agency exception
in cases of procuring intent focuses on bringing about AR- knowledge of circumstances necessary for criminal liability remains essential
explain 4 scenarios of principal offences
- principal offence is committed as expected
- principal offence is less serious than expected(limits liability)
- principal offence is more serious than expected(constructive liability may apply)
- principal offence is different but similar enough for liability (eg: overwhelming supervening events)
what are Defences to complicity
-Withdrawl- assistance or encouragement ceases effectively, evidence supports withdrawal relative to D’s level of involvement
-Victim Rule- victim can’t be complicit in their victimisation- rule only applies to protected classes and direct victims
R v Jogee (2016)
2 drunk men went to home of woman known to them- she told them to leave bc her bf coming- said they weren’t bothered- stabbed her bf - both sentenced 22 yrs and 18 yrs
National coal board v Gamble (1959)
overladen lorry - D supplied P with coal which was over limit - P continued to commit offence - let P go ahead was enough as he assisted
R v Rook(1993)
D absent when P murdered D’s wife
Evidence of withdrawal is balanced against level of D’s involvement
R v Tyrell (1864)
encouraged underage girl to have sex and was charged as accomplice
