• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/34

Click to flip

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