Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who may be convicted as a party to a crime?
|
s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as ammended by the Criminal Law Act 1967
"Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender". S.44 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 makes a similar provision with respect ot summary offenses. Those involved in crimes to a lesser degree in this way are referred to as secondary parties and as a general rule their liability is the same as that of the principle. |
|
|
Define Who the principals are?
|
The principle is the main perpetrator of the offence: the one who commits the actus reus or the substantail part of the actus reus.
It is possible to have more than one principle if more than one person is directly responsible for the actus reus. See- Rogers (2003) |
|
|
List the types of Secondary participation?
|
there are 4 kinds of secondary participants:
(i) Aiding (ii) Abetting (iii) Counselling (iv) Procuring The four words have a distinct meaning, yet aiding and abbetting are normally charged together as are counselling and procuring. |
|
|
Define Innocent Agents
|
a principle may not always carry out the actus reus directly. He may us an innocent agent (e.g. Cogan and Leak (1976)).
|
|
|
What is Aiding?
|
This is assisting the principle to commit the offencse
|
|
|
What is Abetting?
|
This is providing encouragement. It implies that the principal derives (draws) some encouragement from the abettor.
|
|
|
What is Counselling?
|
This involves the giving of advice. counselling usually takes place prior to the commission of the crime and the counsellor may well not be present at the scene of the crime. (Authority: Calhaem (1985)).
|
|
|
Calehaem (1985)
Counselling (crime) |
D was charged with murder, she was said to have counselled Z to commit murder. Z gave evidence that despite D's instructions he had no intention of carrying out the killing. However, when he got to the victims flat he had gone "beserk" and killed her. The jury was directed that counselling involved "putting somebody up to something" and that the acts carried out must be with the scope of the instructions. The CA held that there was no requirement of causual counselling, and the conviction up-held.
|
|
|
What is Procuring?
|
This means to "produce by endeavor". It is unnecessary for the principal to know about the procuring, but procuring does imply a causual connections - see: Attorney Generals Ref No.1 (1975) this was an example of procuring without the knowledge and consent of the principle but was the cuase fo the offence.
|
|
|
Define: Assistance after the commission of an arrestable offence?
|
assistance given after the commission of an arrestable offence, to enable someone to escape or dispose of evidence or proceeds for example, does not come with the definitions of aiding, abetting, councelling or procuring. It is a separate offence intentionally to impede the apprehension or prosecution of an arrestable offender (s.4 Criminal Law Act 1967)
|
|
|
What if you are "present at the scene of the crime"?
|
merely witnessing an offence and omitting to try and stop or report the crime does not amount to secondary participation.
See Wilcox v Jeffery (1951) |
|
|
Wilcox v Jeffery (1951)
|
D was present at a concert given by someone who was performing in the country in contrevention with the Aliens Order 1920. He had met the performer at the airport beforehand and later praised the preformance in a magazine. The CT held that this was sufficient evidence of encouragement to constitute secondary participation.
|
|
|
Jefferson (1994)
|
D and others were present during a widespread public disorder after a televised football game. There was no evidence of their violence but the prosecution claimed that their presence had actively encouraged others to violence. They were correctly convicted as secondary participants under ss.1 and 2 Public Orders Act 1986. The CA upheld conviction - where the presence of D's encouraged and was intended to encourage violence, aiding and abetting was established.
|
|
|
Explain "participation by omission"?
|
Failing to prevent an offence can amount ot participation in it where a person is in a position to prevent it becuase s/he is in control of the property or for some other reason.
Authority: Tuck v Robinson (1970) and Bland (1987) |
|
|
Tuck v Robinson (1970)
|
D was the licensee of a public house. He allowed his customers to drink after hours and therby committed offences. His inactivitiy was held to constitute aiding and abetting becuase he was in a position of authority and control and therefore under a duty to act.
|
|
|
Bland (1987)
|
D lived with someone who was guilty of possession of drugs. Her conviction for aiding and abetting him was quashed on appeal. The CT found that there was no evidence of active or passive assistance. Living in the same room was not enough
|
|
|
What is the Mens Rea of secondary Parties?
|
Knowledge and Joint interprise.
Knowledge: secondary participants need both the mens rea as to their own actus reus and knowledge of, or at least wilful blindness as to, the circumstances of the offence. This is so even in relation to strict liability. See: Callow v Tillsone (1900) |
|
|
Callow v Tillstone (1900)
|
D was a veternary who had examined a carcass and negligently cetified it as sound. The principal was liable under strict liability for selling unfit food, but D's conviction as a secondary participant was quashed because he had been meerly negligent and had not known that the meat was unsound.
The secondary party need not know all the details of the offence to be committed but s/he must have an idea of the type of offence or have a seriews of possible offences in mind. |
|
|
Brainbridge (1960)
|
D purchased oxygen cutting equipment on behalf of a third party, who he knew was going to use it for some illegal activity, although he was not sure what the purpose was. The CT held that for D to be liable, s/he would need to know more than just the purpose was illegal. For example he would need to know the purpose was for breaking and entering, not where.
|
|
|
DPP for Nothern Ireland v Maxwell (1978)
|
D was a member of a terrorist organisation. He was told to drive some men to the cinema. He knew that their purpose was illegal bt did not know the specific details. In fact they planted a bomb. He was convictied of aiding and abetting. The HL held that he did not need to know the specific weapon and method, he knew they were terrorist, thus knew the purpose was to endanger lives, that was enough to convict. This case widened the scope of liability.
|
|
|
blakely, Sutton (1991)
|
D's spiked thier victims drink, intending to tell him before he left so that he would be forced to walk home. The victim left before they had the chance to tell him. The victim was arrested for excess blood alcohol content. The D's contended this was not their intention, nor for the V to committ such an offense. The CA quashed convictions expressing the opinion that only intention would suffice.
|
|
|
Explain what is ment by
"joint enterprise"? |
The secondary party must have foreseen that (a) the principle offender would commit the actus reus of the full offence and (b) that the principle offender would do so with the requisite mens rea. However, if the principle commits acts not contemplated by the secondary party, then he alone is responsible for those actions and any resulting consequences.
|
|
|
Powell, English (1997)
|
see page 32 nutshells
|
|
|
Explain the Acquittal of principle offender
|
The secondary participant may still be convicted if the principle is acquitted. It is sufficent to prove the actus reus of an offence has been committed.
|
|
|
No Actus Reus of an Offence
|
If the acquittal of the principle offender means that no actus reus has been committed, then there can be no secondary liability.
|
|
|
Thorton v Mitchell (1940)
No Actus Reus of an Offense |
a conductor of a bus was charged as a secondary party to careless driving after helping a driver to reverse. the driver was acquitted on the basis of no carelessness. The conductor was acquitted too. If there was no careless driving, there could be no aiding and abetting
|
