Accomplice Liability

AR
1. Principal offence committed
  1. R v Dias
  2. No need prove causal link between accomplice's actions and commission of offence
  3. R v Gnango
  4. Principal offender innocent - accomplice charged as Principal
    1. R v Bourne
  5. R v Cogan and Leek
2. Aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence
  1. Doing anything after the principal offence has been committed is none of these
  2. Procurement does not require knowledge of the principal offence
  3. R v Clarkson
  4. Wilcox v Jeffrey
  5. Inc failure to act when there is a duty to do so
    1. DuCros v Lambourne
    2. Tuck v Robson
    3. R v Russell & Russell
  6. Presence at crime scene not sufficient: R v Clarkson
MR
1. Intention to assist, encourage or procure the principal offence
  1. Specific intent required even if strict liability offence: Callow v Tillstone
  2. Deliberately doing the act of encouragement suffices, it doesn’t matter if D didn’t want the result of the principal offence to occur: NCB v Gamble
  3. Being contractually obliged to assist is not a valid defence
  4. Knowledge need not be specific only knowledge that a certain type of offence is to be carried out is sufficient: R v Bainbridge
    1. Maxwell v DPP
    2. R v Howe
2. Knowledge of the circs of the principle offence = knowledge of the “essential matter which constitute the offence”: Youden v Johnson
  1. Going beyond the scope of the plan
    1. If PO goes beyond scope of plan AND D contemplated was a real possibility PO commit more serious crime AND they participated, D liable for more serious offence: R v Hyde
      1. Inc tacit agreements: R v Slack
      2. R v Lovesey and Peterson
    2. PO deliberately exceeds plan, accomplice not liable for the unauthorised excessive part of the plan: R v Dunbar; R v Anderson and Morris
    3. For murder, accomplice must anticipate PO will kill or GBH: R v Powell; A, B, C and D v R
    4. Plan to GBH (not kill), accomplice not liable if PO commits a murder in a way that is ‘fundamentally different’ to that envisaged by the accomplice: R v English
      1. R v Rahman
      2. R v Yemoh
      3. R v Gilmour
  2. Withdrawal from a plan
    1. Person can validly withdraw from plan: R v Grundy
    2. R v Beverra
    3. The communication must be an unequivocal, effective and timely communication of intention to withdraw

Next up

Accomplice Liability

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by alex.ariel about 11 years ago