Section 323 (C)

The perceived problem with section 323 (1) (a) and (c) is the common law only acknowledged one basis of liability. Under the first basis, a person must have knowledge of the essential facts of the offence and intentionally aiding and abetting, counseling and procuring the offence. The new section 323 (1) (b) and (c) now covers the recklessness of the person. They was ambiguity found in the wording of section 323 (2) with the word encourage. With the new law, the person must have intended to assist and encourage the person to commit the offence.

A principal at first degree included the actual offender that committed the crime and the other party, which may be the instigator, or a person who wasn’t present at the time of the crime but aided through an innocent agent can also be treated as a principal in the first degree. The previous law a person who aided and abetted, counseled or procured a felony, but were not present at the time of the crime would be found to be accessories of the crime but were not principals of the second degree. …show more content…
EVEN

The new law of complicity states that the physical presence at a crime scene is not an essential part of being involved in the commission of an offence section 323 (3) (a). With the previous law, both parties would be found guilty even if he only he only intentionally assisted, encouraged or directed the crime.

The other perceived problem found in Section 323 is a person would be not prosecuted even if they were present at the crime. The issue with second-degree principal can be seen in R v Russell as the accused took place in the offence and acted in consent with the parties that committed the crime. The mental element in the case lies in the man who stood and watched the crime