Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
You won't be prosecuted as an accomplice to a law intended to protect you
|
R v Tyrell (1894)
|
|
A-G's Reference (1 of 1975)
|
a. Aid: give assistance
b. Abet: give encouragement at the time of the offence c. Counsel: give encouragement earlier, before the time it is committed d. Procure: bring about the offence |
|
Mere presence at the scene is not sufficient for an accomplice – you need prior arrangement or some sort of encouragement
|
R v Clarkson
|
|
Paying to attend an illegal event could amount to encouragement of a crime
|
Wilcox v Jeffrey
|
|
Silence where you have a duty or obligation to restrain another might amount to encouragement
|
Du Cros v Lambourne
|
|
Pub owner who let customers drink after hours held to be an accomplice to drinking after hours because of duty to stop customers
|
Tuck v Robson
|
|
Failure of one parent to intervene in ill-treatment by other parent of a child held to amount to encouragement
|
R v Russell and Russell
|
|
Meeting of minds
|
A-G's Reference (1 of 1975)
a. A meeting of minds means that, if the principal becomes aware of encouragement or advice before or during crime, this is enough for the AR of accomplice liability (usually required for counselling/abetting) b. For procurement, there does need to be a causal link c. For aiding, principal need not know of aid given |
|
The AR of the actual crime needs to be committed by the principal to have an accomplice
|
R v Dias
|
|
You can be liable as an accomplice even if the principal is acquitted as long as the AR is committed
|
R v Cogan and Leak
|
|
Innocent agents
|
R v Bourne
Use of a IA usually results in A being charged as the P rather than the actual one doing the AR In sex offence cases involving an innocent agent, personal involvement usually required to be P, so real perp tends to be an accomplice |
|
2 parts to MR of accomplice s8
|
National Coal Board v Gamble
a) Intention to aid (shown by voluntary positive act of assistance) b) Knowledge of the circumstances |
|
Knowledge of the circumstances
– D intended the assisting act |
Johnson v Youden
|
|
Unequivocal, effective and timely communication of withdrawal
|
R v Becerra
|
|
If at the scene, communication probably not enough
|
R v Becerra
|
|
Words may be effective where A withdraws before crime
|
R v Grundy
|
|
Knowledge of the circumstances
– Knew suspected things amounting to AR would happen – Don't need to know it's a crime, ignorance of law no defence – D had in his contemplation all the circumstances of the principal offence |
Johnson v Youden
|
|
Knowledge of the type of act is sufficient; the specific Knowledge of the circumstances
|
R v Bainbridge
|
|
If D has a range of offences in contemplation, he is liable for any of them actually committed
|
Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland
|
|
The criminal law will take precedence over civil law where, say, performing a contract amounts to knowingly assisting a criminal offence.
|
Garrett v Arthur Churchill
|
|
Strict liability: mens rea still needed for accomplice to SL offences
|
Callow v Tillstone
|
|
It is possible for an accomplice to face a more serious charged provided the AR is committed
|
R v Howe
|
|
An accomplice is liable if he tacitly agreed to the offence or had lent himself to its commission
|
R v Slack
|
|
If A goes along with a venture knowing P might do something, he has lent himself to it
- You're only not liable if it honestly didn't occur to you at all |
R v Hyde
|
|
All “co-adventurers”, principal and accomplice, are liable for the unintended consequence of carrying out a plan
|
R v Lovesey and Peterson
|
|
Where the principal has deliberately exceeded the plan, the accomplice will not have liability for the unauthorised act.
|
R v Anderson and Morris
R v Dunbar |
|
Where the principal carries out the deed contemplated by A and P, A should be guilty according to level of intent he acted with, including unintended consequences.
|
R v Gilmour
|
|
Where the principal has secretly deliberately exceeded the plan, the accomplice will not have liability for the unauthorised act.
|
R v Anderson and Morris
|
|
Where the deed is jointly contemplated, A should be guilty according to level of intent he acted with, including unintended consequences.
|
R v Gilmour
|
|
Where P departs from plan, A will not have liability for murder unless A foresaw that P might intentionally do killing or GBH
|
R v Powell
|
|
To be liable for murder as a secondary, you must foresee that a party may commit murder (intent to kill or GBH)
|
A, B, C and D v R
|
|
If A foresees that P might intentionally cause GBH but (but not kill) and P causes it in a fundamentally different way to that foreseen by A (ie knife instead of stick) A will not be liable for manslaughter or murder
|
R v English
|
|
R v English but with possible intent to kill as well
|
R v Rahman
|
|
Different knife is not a fundamental difference
|
R v Yemoh
|