Accessorial Liability

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Launston
  • Created on: 13-05-14 11:39
View mindmap
  • Accessories
    • Joint Enterprise
      • Both parties contribute to the actus reus of the offence
    • Principle and Accessory
      • Only one party commits the actus reus and the other offers assistance
      • Actus Reus
        • Counsel
        • Abet
          • Consensus but not causation
            • Bryce - accessories should be charged using a 'catch-all' composite phrase
        • Procure
          • Causation but not consenus
        • Aid
          • Actual assistance but not consensus or causation
      • Mens Rea
        • Bryce - three elements
          • Intentionally doing an act knowing it is capable of assisting the principle
          • Doing the act with the intention of assisting the principle
          • Doing the act in contemplation of the commission 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
      • May escape liability by withdrawal
        • Level of participation
          • More assistance, more he must do to withdraw
        • Nearness 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
        • Spontaneous offences
          • Communication is waived
            • Robinson - struck first blow but then protected victim
              • Defendant who initiated attack can only withdraw in exceptional circumstances
    • Principal acquitted but accessory liable
      • Principal may have a defence
        • Bourne - wife acquitted of buggery due to defence of duress
      • Principal may lack mens rea
        • DPP v K and B - no mens rea for rape as he may have believed she was consenting
          • Shows that accessories can still be liable for offences they cannot commit (women and rape)
    • Principal and accessory liable for different offences
      • Offences may have the same actus reus but different mens rea - ss. 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 accessory foresaw that the principal might do

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »