Principal Offender Flashcards
(10 cards)
Who is a principal offender at common law?
A. Anyone who actually commits the actus reus (or a substantial part of it) with the required mens rea
B. Only the person who plans the offence but does not act
C. Someone who only encourages the crime after it is complete
D. A person who has no mens rea but is present at the scene
A. Anyone who actually commits the actus reus (or a substantial part of it) with the required mens rea
Explanation: A principal is the main perpetrator—D must perform the criminal act (or a substantial part) and have the requisite MR
P tells her friend “It’s just a prank” and hands her a closed letter to post through X’s door, which contains a firearm. The friend posts it, unaware of the contents. Who is the principal?
A. The friend who posted the letter
B. P, who directed the innocent agent to commit the act
C. Neither, because no one intended harm
D. Both, as co-principals
B. P, who directed the innocent agent to commit the act
Explanation: The unwitting friend is an innocent agent; P is guilty as principal because she orchestrated the actus reus through another
D1 and D2 together break a shop window, each using a crowbar. Both intend to steal. Under Jogee [2016], their liability is as:
A. Accessories to each other’s acts
B. Principal and accessory, depending on who struck first
C. Joint principals, each liable for the burglary
D. Neither, unless one steals the goods
C. Joint principals, each liable for the burglary
Explanation: When two or more defendants act together, each committing part of the AR with intent, they are joint principals
Someone stands guard outside a house while an accomplice burgles inside. That guard is:
A. An accessory abetting the burglary
B. Neither principal nor accessory if unarmed
C. A mere spectator
D. A second-degree principal, present and ready to assist with required mens rea
D. A second-degree principal, present and ready to assist with required mens rea
Explanation: A second-degree principal shares MR and, by ready assistance, becomes a principal rather than an accessory
After Jogee [2016], to be a joint principal D must have:
A. Intended to assist or encourage the principal actus reus with at least conditional intent
B. Only foreseen the principal might commit some crime
C. Intended only the AR, not the MR
D. Been present at the scene
A. Intended to assist or encourage the principal actus reus with at least conditional intent
Explanation: Jogee requires that D intended to help or encourage the criminal act itself, even if only conditionally
Which distinguishes an innocent agent scenario from accessory liability?
A. D must have provided the means for the crime
B. The actor is unaware they are committing a crime
C. D must be physically present at the crime
D. Accessory liability attaches only after conviction
B. The actor is unaware they are committing a crime
Explanation: In an innocent-agent case, the “actor” lacks mens rea entirely, so D who directs them is the principal
If three people together stab V fatally, each with intent to kill, they are:
A. Accessories abetting each other
B. A principal and two accessories
C. Three joint principals
D. Only one principal, chosen by the jury
C. Three joint principals
Explanation: Multiple defendants can each be principals when all share intent and commit part of the AR
D waits outside a house “to help if needed,” intending only to assist theft if the door is open. D never acts because the police arrive. Has D been a principal?
A. No—no actus reus committed
B. No—conditional intent is insufficient for principal liability
C. Yes—but only as an accessory
D. Yes—conditional intent with preparation suffices for joint enterprise principal
D. Yes—conditional intent with preparation suffices for joint enterprise principal
Explanation: Conditional intent to assist, coupled with steps to participate, makes D a principal under joint-enterprise principles
D sends a personless drone fitted with a knife to stab V. The drone autonomously flies and carries out the stabbing. Who is the principal?
A. The drone itself, as it committed the act
B. Neither, because no human hands carried it out
C. An accessory, since D did not physically commit the act
D. D, as the procurer of the act through an innocent agent
D. D, as the procurer of the act through an innocent agent
Explanation: Under the innocent‐agent principle, someone who procures a crime by an agent who lacks mens rea (here, the drone) is treated as the principal
D and P agree to burgle a house (theft). During the burglary P unexpectedly assaults a resident. Under Jogee [2016], is D a principal for the assault?
A. Yes—any violence during a burglary makes D liable
B. Yes—but only if D foresaw some violence might occur
C. No—because assault wasn’t in the agreed plan
D. No—D did not intend or contemplate the assault, so not a principal for that offence
D. No—D did not intend or contemplate the assault, so not a principal for that offence
Explanation: Joint‐enterprise liability requires that D intended to assist or encourage the actus reus in question; assault was outside the contemplated range (Jogee)
