Criminal - Inchoate Offences & Accomplice Liability Flashcards
Conspiracy - Actus Reus
Agreement to a course of conduct that will necessarily amount to/involve an offence.
- Must be more than a discussion (Walker), but no need to agree on all details (Nock)
- Some people are considered not to be able to conspire e.g. Victim, spouse, children under 10.
Conspiracy - Mens Rea
Intent to agree / to commit the offence.
1) Intent to agree.
2) Intent that the offence be committed (McPhillips).
Attempted “___” - Actus Reus
To do an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.
1) Must be an act (not an omission)
- s.1(2) CAA 1981 - impossibility does not prevent AR from being established e.g. pick-pocketing an empty pocket or trying to break a safe with a spoon.
2) More than preparatory
- Significant steps need to be taken towards the offence, but not necessary for D to have done all he intends to do. (Pointing a gun at someone is more than merely preparatory) (R v Jones)
- He must at least have embarked upon the crime proper, which is a question of fact to be decided by the jury (Gullefer)
- Impossibility: D thought he was smuggling drugs but was actually smuggling talcum powder. Held had AR as did act which was more than merely preparatory ( R v Shivpuri) .
Attempted “___” - Mens Rea
Intent to commit the offence
Usually the prosecution must establish that D intended the consequences that form AR of the full offence.
- Crim. Damage - Intention required (not recklessness) (R v Whybrow, R v Millard and Vernon)
- ACD - D must intend damage but recklessness for endangerment of life is enough.
- If recklessness to existing circumstances is sufficient for full offence, sufficient for an attempt.
- Impossibility doesn’t prevent MR if on the facts as D believed, he would have had intent.
- Conditional intent is adequate e.g. “I’ll steal something if there’s anything worth stealing.
R v Tyrell
Accomplice liability
You can’t be an accomplice if you are the victim of a crime created to protect you (e.g. if 14-year-old girl persuades her 19-year-old boyfriend to have sex with her).
Garrett v Arthur Churchill
Accomplice liability
If D had to do the act of assistance e.g. to fulfill contractual obligation, they will still be liable for aiding criminal offence as Criminal law will take precedence over the Civil law.
Accomplice Liability - Actus Reus
Aid, abet, counsel or procure a crime.
- Aid - give assistance (no need for mental or causal link)
- Abet - give encouragement at the time of the offence (probably mental link, but not causal)
- Counsel - give encouragement earlier i.e. prior to committing of offence (probably mental link, but not causal)
- Procure - bring about the offence (not mental link, but causal)
R v Clarkson
Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not in itself sufficient to amount to AR.
Wilcox v Jeffery
Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement of the crime.
Du Cros v Lambourne
Remaining silent or failing to intervene where there is a right or duty to control actions of P can amount to encouragement.
Tuck v Robinson
Pub owner keeping pub open after hours was accomplice to drinking after hours.
R v Russell and Russell
Failure of parent to intervene with another in ill-treatment of child amounted to encouragement.
R v Gnango
A person who agrees to the joint enterprise of having a shootout and causes another to shoot at him is guilty of attempted murder of himself.
Accomplice Liability - AR - “a crime”
- The AR of an act must be committed by a principal offender for accomplice liability to arise (R v Dias)
- If principal offender escapes liability (e.g. by raising defence) an accomplice can still be convicted. (R v Cogan and Leak)
- Use of innocent agents to commit AR of a crime usually results in D being convicted as P rather than A.
- D can still be charged as A in such circumstances (different MR requirements) (R v Bourne)
R v Dias
The AR of an act must be committed by a principal offender for accomplice liability to arise.
