Criminal Attempts; Criminal Participation; Joint Enterprise Flashcards Preview

Criminal Law > Criminal Attempts; Criminal Participation; Joint Enterprise > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal Attempts; Criminal Participation; Joint Enterprise Deck (13)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Criminal Attempts; The Proximity Test

A

So close to the commission of the crime that is is punishable
R v Robinson

D has committed the Last act necessary on his part to commit the offence
R v Stonehouse

2
Q

S 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981: Actus Reus

A

Actus Reus:
Performing an act which is more than merely preparatory

Ruling Test: Defendant is “on the job”

3
Q

S 1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981: Mens Rea

A

Intention to Commit an Act (no recklessness)

(with attempted murder, intention to cause GBH not enough)

Even if the actual commission of the crime is impossible the D is judged according to what he thought the facts were
(shivpuri: think your Delivering drugs, tried as if it were drugs)

4
Q

Criminal Attempts Reform

A

Wilson:
Need a clearer definition of Criminal attempts and a definition of what the “last acts” are

A new offence of criminal preparation will be just as vague.

5
Q

Theory of Derivative Liability

A

Accessory to a crime derives his liability form the Principals commission of the crime because A:

  • A is an accomplice to the crime
  • A has consented to the commission of the crime
  • A has encouraged the commission of the crime

Perpetrator: the Principal Offender
Participants: Accessories/Accomplices

6
Q

Doctrine of Innocent Agency

A

Where the person who instigates the commission of a crime is the Principal Offender if the other individual completely lacks mens Rea
P asks A to put treatment in her pool but tis really poison to kill her husband.

Cogan v Leek

7
Q

Accessoryship Actus Reus

A

Aid/abet: Help or encourage by presence
Counsel: Advise
Procure: Instigate, procure by endeavour

Doing nothing is not aiding and abetting (r v Clarkson)

Encouraging must be communicated; Assistance doesn’t (state v Kelly)

A Causal link is not necessary (r v Calhaem)

8
Q

Accessoryship; Mens Rea

A

Intention to assist or encourage when:
A) it is his purpose or desire to assist or encourage the Principal to commit the offence
B) when he knows that his Act/Words will have the effect

Direct Intention: Prove only that it is A’s purpose to assist or encourage

Indirect Intention: Prove only that A knew that his acts or words would assist or encourage P to commit the offence
(r v Gillick)

9
Q

Accessoryship; Knowledge of the Circumstances

A

A must know the essential matters which constitute the offence.

1) Know what he is doing or saying will assist or encourage P to commit the offence
2) Does A know the facts which make P’s act criminal

Knowledge doesn’t need to be very detailed
R v Bainbridge
r v Maxwell

10
Q

Joint Enterprise Liability

A

A remains liable for any crime committed by P so lone as P does not depart deliberately from the Joint Enterprise

(AR + MR same as Accessory)

11
Q

Joint enterprise liability; Deliberate variations

A

A is not liable for consequences of P’s deliberate variations from the Joint Enterprise
Davies v DPP R v Willett

Exception: Unless the Deliberate Variation by P was within the contemplation of A
R v Powell

12
Q

Joint Enterprise Liability: Fundamentally different rule

A

P’s mode of killing is fundamentally different from what was contemplated by the joint enterprise

P produces a weapon of which A is unaware and is more lethal than A contemplates and so is fundamentally different

A is not liable if the killing by P is unforeseen and done with an unknown weapon of greater lethality

13
Q

Withdrawal from Complicity (JE)

A

Factors:

  • Extent of A’s involvement
  • Degree to which JE has advanced
  • Nature of the offence

Communication is necessary to remove liability; UNLESS
R v Grundy R v Rook

your participation is Active assistance at the scene in which case simple communication will not be effective only Active Intervention
Bacerra & Cooper