Psrties To a Crime

Question 1

What is a joint principal

Answer 1

Someone two or more people perform the actus reus and mens rea of an offence together - eg A and B entering Anna’s property together as trespassers to steal her property. Both are guilty of murder under s91b

Question 2

What is a secondary party to an offence ?

Answer 2

Someone who assists in the commission of an offence in some way whilst not committing the actus reus of the offence themselves

Eg someone standing outside Ann’s property acting as a lookout - acting as a secondary party to the burglary

Question 3

What are the four types of accessory liability?

Answer 3

Aiding, abetting, procuring or counselling

Question 4

Which statute defines accessory liability?

Answer 4

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1862

Question 5

Will the punishment powers differ for an accomplice compared to the principal offender ?

Answer 5

No, eg someone who supplies the knife for someone else to kill someone will be subject to the same mandatory life sentence as someone who uses it to kill V

Question 6

What does aiding mean?

Answer 6

It means to help, assist or support the principal in some way to enable them to commit the offence

Question 7

When does aiding usually occur?

Answer 7

At the time of the offence but it can also happen earlier. It does not include those whose involvement is only after the offence, such as disposing of evidence or deleting incriminating emails

Question 8

What would be an example of aiding at the time of the offence?

Answer 8

Acting as a lookout or holding the victim down while the principal assaults the victim

Question 9

What is abetting?

Answer 9

Encouraging D to take part in the offence

Question 10

At what stage does abetting occur?

Answer 10

During the offence itself - during the commission of the offence

Question 11

How does abetting occur (what’s an example of abetting)

Answer 11

Through either words or actions - such as shouting words of encouragement like ‘kick him’ while the victim is being assaulted, or use gestures, such as miming the actions of a punch or even giving a thumbs up

Question 12

What is counselling?

Answer 12

Instigating, soliciting or encouraging, or even threatening, the principal to commit an offence

Question 13

When does counselling happen?

Answer 13

Counselling happens sometime prior to the commission of the offence

This is how it differs to abetting, where the prosecution must show that D will fully encouraged the offence to happen at the scene

Question 14

How does counselling work (what’s an example of counselling)?

Answer 14

Encouraging an assault by ‘winding up’ the principal offender, eg saying ‘he deserves it’

Or saying it’s a ‘brilliant idea’ for the principal to scrawl graffiti on a local politician’s house

Question 15

Does the amount of encouragement need to be great for liability to arise in counselling?

Answer 15

No - man says ‘I’m going to
Kill your wife’, other man says ‘oh goody’ - this is enough to convict the husband as an accomplice via counselling

Question 16

What is procuring

Answer 16

It is completely different from aiding, abetting or counselling

It means to produce by endeavour - D sets out to achieve a particular set of affairs and takes appropriate steps to bring about that offence

Question 17

When does procuring happen?

Answer 17

Remember they procuring required the accomplice to actually cause the crime so this will occur at an earlier time to the offence

Question 18

How does procuring happen (give an example of procuring)?

Answer 18

Someone who secretly adds alcohol to a friend’s drink knowing that their friend will soon be driving home, procures the offence of drinking with excess alcohol. By spiking the drink, D puts the principal offender in a position whereby they commit an offence they would not otherwise have done

Question 19

Is mere presence at the scene enough to convict someone of procuring an offence ?

Answer 19

No, even if they’re presence there did encourage the principal - it requires a wilful encouragement (active steps must be taken - words or actions)

Question 20

What does R v Allan have to say about mere presence at the scene not being sufficient for abetting?

Answer 20

That simply being there at the scene of an offence and harbouring a secret desire to help out in the offence if needed is not enough for liability as this would essentially be convicting someone for the thoughts in their head

Question 21

What did Wilcox say about mere presence at the scene of a crime being sufficient for abetting?

Answer 21

The man’s mere presence as a spectator of a jazz show was enough for abetting. The jazz player had been allowed entry to the country on the basis that he wouldn’t work.

Wilcox was held to have encouraged the commission of the offence by meeting him at the airport, buying a concert ticket, sitting in the concert and writing about it in his magazine

The justification was they there would have not been a performance without the audience, so the presence of each spectator was an encouragement to the principal offender to perform

So whether presence at the scene of a crime will be sufficient depends upon the particular facts

Question 22

What is an example of presence at the scene incurring liability

Answer 22

If attendance at the scene was by prior arrangement with the principal; effectively they are acting as a support in that situation

Alternatively, if the accused actually encouraged or assisted the principal (by words or actions) at the scene of the crime

Question 23

What is a mental link

Answer 23

A meeting of the minds - an agreement as to the best course of action

Question 24

Is a mental link needed for procuring an offence

Answer 24

No

Question 25

Does the principal offender need to be aware of / have a discussion with the accessory in order to be liable

Answer 25

No - see page 179

Question 26

Why is it said that a mental link isn’t needed for aiding

Answer 26

Because D can be guilty even if the principal offender didn’t know they were helping (eg distracting a police officer without her knowing)

Question 27

Where is there a requirement for a causal link between the actions of the accessory offender and the principal ?

Answer 27

Procuring - the circumstances they create must cause the principals crime (eg spiking the drink must cause the principal to be guilty of the driving offence)

Question 28

Can you be guilty as an accessory liability if you only engage in action after the commission of the primary offence

Answer 28

No - but you can be guilty of other offences Eg arriving late to a murder, V is already dead so you help bury the body

Question 29

What are the two weird situations where the principal may not be convicted of an offence but the accomplice is?

Answer 29

1) where the principal has a defence R v Cogan (rape) If D encourages P to commit a crime where the mens rea is an honest belief in consent - D encourages P to engage in the activity but P has the defence of saying he had an honest belief in consent - P will get off but D will have to go to jail 2) where the principal cannot be found Note that in both situations the actus reus of the principal offence has been carried out and this must occur before an accomplice can attract liability

Question 30

What is an innocent agent?

Answer 30

Someone who commits the actus reus of a crime guy who is not guilty of the offence because they lack the mens rea.

Question 31

What if someone who encourages someone to do something but that person acts as an innocent agent?

Answer 31

The person who convinces them to do it will be treated as the principal offender rather than an accessory

Question 32

What are the two parts of the test for mens rea for accessory liability

Answer 32

Intention to do the act or say the words and knowledge of the circumstances

Question 33

What are the liability limbs of an accomplice who knows the offence the PO is going to offend

Answer 33

1) Accomplice just intend to do the act or day the words (indifference to a crime being committing does not prevent abetting) 2) Accomplice must have knowledge of the circumstances, namely that the facts which make the principal offender’s conduct criminal (he must know some of the things that might happen that make the conduct criminal)

Question 34

What are the two additional elements for mens rea requirements for an accomplice who does not have knowledge of the specific offence that the PO intends to commit?

Answer 34

1) the accomplice knows the type of crime but not the exact detail of the intended offence (Baunbridge) Or 2) Accomplice knows the offence will be in a limited range (Maxwell UVF case) eg if you know a military operation will happen and bombing the place is one of the possible offences

Question 35

What happens if the PO does the agreed actus reus but with a different mens rea than intended by the accomplice?

Answer 35

The accomplice is guilty as an accomplice to the extent to which matches the accomplices’s own mens rea

Question 36

Where are you most likely to see a question where the mens rea of the accomplice is for a different offence to the principal offender?

Answer 36

S18/20 OAPA

Question 37

What must the secondary party have the MR

Answer 37

1) intention to aid abbet procure or counsel 2)knowledge / contemplation of a range of possible crimes, one of which P commits

Question 38

Expand on the knowledge requirement for an accomplice

Answer 38

Knowledge of a range of possible crimes, one of which P commits - D must have knowledge of the crime P actually commits If D just has knowledge of the general type (property) offence, but not the specific type - he’ll be guilty as an accessory to the one he thought but not the one P committed - eg robbery not theft

Question 39

Is D knowing that P will do something vaguely illegal enough to convict them of accessory liability?

Answer 39

No - unless they knew of a range of offences, like taking a group of T’s to a public place with knowledge they would commit a range of offences (like damage to people vs damage to property)