Flashcards in General Accessorial Liability Deck (18):
P must be in fact assisted by D's action but she need not be aware of the assistance.
Wilcox v Jeffery
P must in fact receive encouragement but the encouragement need not make a difference.
Mere physical presence which does not by itself encourage is insufficient.
Physical presence may be sufficient in circumstances where that presence implies support.
A-G v Able
For counseling D must in fact receive advice/information helping or inciting her to commit a crime.
A-G Ref No.1 of 1975
To procure means to produce by endeavor. You procure by setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps to produce that happening.
Du Cros v Lambourne
If D omits to interfere and prevent an offence where she has a legal duty to do so, the power to control P and an opportunity to intervene her failure to interfere will constitute the actus reus of aiding and abetting.
If D has the power and opportunity to intervene but no legal duty, it appears the non-intervention is merely evidence of abetting and actual abetting must still be proved.
Stringer (2 precedents)
There must be some connecting link between D's aid and abetment and P's crime such that D's conduct can be said to have made a contribution to the commission of the offence.
As long as P was aware of D's conduct there may be a presumption that the necessary connection and contribution is established.
If D intentionally contributes to P's crime ONLY because he owes a legal duty to do so he is not guilty of aiding and abetting (wrong in principle since it confuses motive with intention).
If the aid and abetment occurs before the crime, D must foresee a real and serious risk that P will commit the crime in the future.
If the aid and abetment occurs at the time the crime is committed S must know the essential matters of P's crime.
Johnson and Youden
S must at least appreciate that D contemplates doing actions which constitute the actus reus of an offence BUT he need not recognize those actions constitute an offence.
It is sufficient that S foresees the definitional elements of the type of offence intended and eventually committed by P. S need not foresee the specific details of the crime.
It is sufficient that S foresees P will commit any one of a number of offences, the list of which includes the type of offence eventually committed.
P must have acted within the scope of D's endorsement.
Saunders and Archer
If S' encouragement is directed specifically to the aspect of P's offence that is intentionally varied by P, S is not complicit - arguably P is no longer acting within the scope of her endorsement. (NOTE: assistance is probably carried by the transferred malice rule)