Art And Part

Front 1

4 Forms Of Art and Part

Back 1

1) By common plan
2) By Instigation
3) By provision of Material Assistance
4) By taking part in the commission

Front 2

Common Plan of Art and Part

Back 2

The existence of common plan may be shown by agreement/conduct. Must be proved beyond reasonable doubt there was a common plan and the accused were parties to the common plan. If a common plan is not proven each co-accused is judged individually.

Hint 2

HMA v Lappen and Others 1956

Front 3

Art and Part By Instigation

Back 3

Occurs when one person procures another to commit a crime such as a contract killing. Advice is not enough.

Hint 3

Miekleham and Parker v HMA 1998

Front 4

Art and part by provision of material assistance

Back 4

A supplier of material assistance towards a crime who does not counsel, instigate or participate may still be guilty of art and part. That person must have knowledge of the criminal plot. The assistance given or material supplied must have real connection with the contemplated crime and the asisstance must be for the commission of an imminent crime.

Hint 4

HMA v Johnstone and Stewart 1926

Front 5

Art and Part by taking part in the commission

Back 5

The Crown must establish that each co-accused shared the common criminal purpose. The art and part liability can arise spontaneously without the need of a common plan. Where concert is proved the individual is responsible for all group actions in pursuit of the common purpose

Hint 5

Gallacher v HMA 1951

Front 6

Ways to Avoid Art and Part Liability

Back 6

1) Withdrawal from the common plan
2) Pre concert
3) Early Participation only
4) Latecoming

Front 7

Withdrawing from the common plan

Back 7

Must also take steps to prevent its completion. If a crime is being contemplated and a participator then quits, they cannot be held to act in concert. Once the planned crime begins there is no escaping art and part

Hint 7

MacNeil and others v HMA

Front 8

Observing a crime

Back 8

Cannot be held as art and part liabile

Hint 8

Lawler v Neizer 1993

Front 9

Pre Concert

Back 9

Where there is a common plan, each accused who is party to the common plan is guilty for what the group does further to the common plan. Where one member goes beyond the original common plan, the liability will depend on how far the actions beyond the common plan were forseeable. If one party carries a weapon, the determining factor is forseeability.

Hint 9

Boyne v HMA 1990

Front 10

Common Plan for Homicide Cases

Back 10

The common criminal purpose must include the material risk of life being taken before all co-accused can be convicted for murder.

Front 11

No Pre Concert

Back 11

Responsibility of each co-accused determined by overall knowledge of situation and foreseeability of eventual outcome.

Front 12

Early Participation Only

Back 12

Participation in an assault at an early stage will not necessarily give rise to art and part guilt of homicide if it could have been foreseen that the assault would be fatal, as long as no further part is played.

Hint 12

Codona v HMA 1996

Front 13

Latecoming

Back 13

A latecomer who is unaware of earlier (fatal) attacks may not be implicated in murder if that is the outcome.

Responsibility may depend on the knowledge of the individuals acting in concert or the role which it can be proved that they played as per

Hint 13

Kabalu v HMA 1999

HMA v Welsh and McLachlan 1897