Accessorial Liability
- Created by: Launston
- Created on: 13-05-14 11:39
View mindmap
- Acce**ories
- Joint Enterprise
- Both parties contribute to the actus reus of the offence
- Principle and Acce**ory
- Only one party commits the actus reus and the other offers a**istance
- Actus Reus
- Counsel
- Abet
- Consensus but not causation
- Bryce - acce**ories should be charged using a 'catch-all' composite phrase
- Consensus but not causation
- Procure
- Causation but not consenus
- Aid
- Actual a**istance but not consensus or causation
- Mens Rea
- Bryce - three elements
- Intentionally doing an act knowing it is capable of a**isting the principle
- Doing the act with the intention of a**isting the principle
- Doing the act in contemplation of the commi**ion of the substantive offence
- Need not know precisely what the principal intends but must have some knowledge of the criminal purpose
- Bainbridge - supplied cutting equipment suspecting it would be used for illegal purposes but did not know specifics of offence
- Maxwell - drove terrorists to pub knowing they would commit attack there but did not know what sort of attack
- Need not know precisely what the principal intends but must have some knowledge of the criminal purpose
- Bryce - three elements
- May escape liability by withdrawal
- Level of participation
- More a**istance, more he must do to withdraw
- Nearne** to completion
- Becerra - fled scene in middle of burglary - not effective withdrawal
- Communication of withdrawal
- Rook - failed to meet the others to commmit the offence - had not communicated so still liable
- Becerra - jumped out window during burglary - must serve unequivocal notice
- Rook - failed to meet the others to commmit the offence - had not communicated so still liable
- Spontaneous offences
- Communication is waived
- Robinson - struck first blow but then protected victim
- Defendant who initiated attack can only withdraw in exceptional circumstances
- Robinson - struck first blow but then protected victim
- Communication is waived
- Level of participation
- Principal acquitted but acce**ory liable
- Principal may have a defence
- Bourne - wife acquitted of buggery due to defence of dure**
- Principal may lack mens rea
- DPP v K and B - no mens rea for **** as he may have believed she was consenting
- Shows that acce**ories can still be liable for offences they cannot commit (women and ****)
- DPP v K and B - no mens rea for **** as he may have believed she was consenting
- Principal may have a defence
- Principal and acce**ory liable for different offences
- Offences may have the same actus reus but different mens rea - **. 18 and 20 OAPA
- Departure from Common Plan
- Anderson and Morris - parties become liable for unplanned offences caused by others
- Exception: one party has done something so different than what was agreed
- Powell - knew that gun was being carried
- English - unaware of weapon
- Rahman - liability arises on basis of what the acce**ory foresaw that the principal might do
- Exception: one party has done something so different than what was agreed
- Anderson and Morris - parties become liable for unplanned offences caused by others
- Joint Enterprise
Comments
No comments have yet been made