STANSFIELD COLLEGE
CRIMINAL LAW
Parties to Crime
2013 - 2014
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
Parties To Crime
Joint Principals
Where D intentionally
cause/commit the AR
of
an
offences
together with another
D
Both Ds will be tried for
the offence committed
Secondary
Offenders
Where D intentionally
aid, abet, counsel or
procure the AR of an
offences.
Guideline in S8 AAA1861
– D will be tried &
punished as Principal
Offender
Rook : no difference in liability between Secondary
Offender and Principal Offender
Innocent Agent
Where D intentionally
caused the AR of an
offence
to
be
committed by a person
who
is
himself
innocent because of
lack of MR or Capacity
D will be tried as Principal
Offender i.e. for the
offence committed
1
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
2
S8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
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.
Note:
- S8 does not create an offence
- D is Secondary offender or Principal Offender – you must specify
whether D is charged as Principal Offender or accessory
- Liability of secondary offender derives from liability of Principle offender
i.e. at least AR of the offence must be committed (Bryce)
- Principle offender may be convicted of a less serious crime due to a
defence available to him
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
Liability as Secondary Offender – to prove - R v Rook (1993)
1. Aid, abet, counsel or procure; &
2. Intention to aid, abet, counsel or procure; &
3. Method used to commit the crime must not be fundamentally
different from what S foresaw/contemplated; &
4. S foresaw that P would do the act with the necessary MR for the
crime
3
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
4
Aid, abet, counsel or procure
- Aid – any type of assistance given suffice – a factual question: it is
immaterial why the assistances given or that P did not require the
assistance or was not aware of the assistance – See Bryce
- Abet & Counsel – are similar term: both mean encouraging
(advising or persuading) the commission of the offence – see
Calhaem; Giannetto;
- Procuring – to produce by endeavour. You procure a thing by
setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps
to produce that happening (AG Ref No. 1 of 1975)
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
Aid, abet, counsel or procure
- Mere presence amounts to aiding and abetting?
R v Allan (1965)
R Coney (1882)
Tuck v Robson (1970)
- Even thought secondary offender is not present, he can be
regarded as aiding and abetting
R v Betts & Ridley (1970)
R v Rook (1993)
- Secondary Liability and omission
D may incur secondary liability for a failure to act where either there
is a recognised legal duty or where he has the right to control the
action of the principal
5
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
6
2. to aid, abet, counsel or procure – voluntariness/willingness
3. Method used to commit the crime must not be fundamentally
different from what S foresaw/contemplated
3 factual scenario
S knew p was carrying a
Particular weapon
Roberts
Cogent evidence that S
contemplated the use
Rahman – Lord Brown
If S knew that P was
carrying a weapon, he
cannot argue that he did
not contemplate the use or
contemplated the use for a
less serious crime (as a
matter of law)
P used a different weapon
but as dangerous as
contemplated by S
Rahman;
S should be liable
Gamble
Agreement to use gun for
kneecapping but P took
produced a knife and cut
the throat of V. S not liable
because S did not
contemplate the use of
equally dangerous
weapon to kill
S did not know that P
was carrying any
weapon. P produced
one and used it.
English
S not liable
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
7
(deliberately left blank)
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
4. S foresaw that P would do the act with the necessary MR for the
crime
Note:
S did not contemplate the act – no liability for consequence
S did not foresee paragraph 4 above – liability for a lesser crime
R v Roberts Day & Day (2001)
8
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE
Withdrawal – S not liable if there is effective withdrawal
-
-
There must be some positive conduct and merely changing mind is insufficient
– he must demonstrate that he is withdrawing (Q of Fact) – O’Flaherty (2004)
Communication of withdrawal – walking away might suffice if practicable
(Mitchell & King) (Rafferty)
Not necessary to take steps to prevent the commission of an offence by P
If S hinders the commission of the offence, there will be not liablity
9
CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE – 2009(B) Q3b
Natalia stabbed Ivan. Ivan was taken to hospital where he was told
he needed emergency surgery and a blood transfusion. Ivan was a
Jehovah’s witness. One of the tenets of this religion is that its
adherents must not accept the blood of another. Ivan, despite being
told that if he did not have a transfusion he would probably die,
refused the blood. He died.
Consider Natalia’s possible liability for murder.
10