Legal requirements of 2ndary participation
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
s8: whoever aids, abets, counsels or procures commission of any indictable offence ... liable to be tried, indicted & punished as principal offender.
NB: S must intended not just own conduct but also know that it will enc
Accessorial liability: AR
AG Ref (No 1/1975)
Approach s8 of AAA on basis that words have ordinary meaning if possible. Probability is that there's difference between 1 word & other 3.
NB: prosecutors can charge Ds will all of the different modes of 2ndary participation at same tim
Aid
Robinson
Aid = assist.
Abet
Terman
Abet = to bait.
Gamble
Suggests abet imports the MR & aids has no such import (doesn't accord w/ statutory formula).
Counsel
Calhaem
Facts: S hired P to murder V. P went to V's house only intending to scare V, but killing her instinctively when she screamed.
Held: Counsel = to solicit, instruct or authorise. P's later offence must be within scope of authority/instruction given
Procure
AG Ref (No 1/1975)
Facts: D laced P's drink w/ alcohol knowing P planned to drive home. P stopped on way home & found to be over drink drive limite.
Held: Possible on facts that D procured offence. Procure = to produce by endeavour. You procure something
Special problems: supportive presence at scene of crime
Coney
Facts: DD in audience at illegal pirze fight between PP.
Held: D may unwittingly encourage another in fact by D's presence, misinterpreted words, silence or non-interference; or may encourage intentionally by expression, gestures, or actions signify
Exempted 2ndary parties
Tyrrell
Facts: D, below age of consent, encouraged P to sleep w/ her.
Held: can't be 2ndary party to offence of which you're the V (narrow interpretation after
Gnango
).
Accessorial liability: MR
Bryce
2ndary participation requires intentional assistance - intention to assist P in acts which S knows are steps taken by P towards commission of offence. Intention of offence to be committed not necessary.
Blakely & Sutton
Recklessness as to whether P
Accessorial liability: knowledge of circumstances constituting an offence
Bryce
Sufficient for S to have knowledge of type of crime in contemplation. Unworkable to require knowledge of essential matters of offence where yet to be committed/by person whose intentions S can't be certain of in advance.
Maxwell
Relevant crimes must
S's liability for crimes not requiring subjective MR committed by P
Webster
Facts: S had been driving P & others home but stopped & allowed P, drunk, to take over. Initially drove car fine but then accelerated & quickly lost control. V, another passenger, killed. P convicted of dangerous driving.
Held: When allowed P to t
Divergence between P's offence and S's liability
Where P commits act S assisted/encouraged him to commit w/ different MR than S expected, P & S can be liable for different offences reflecting P's & S's MR respectively.
Roberts, Day (Marc) & Day (Ian)
All 3 went to pick fight w/ V. M engaged V's companio
S's liability for offences w/ aggravating consequences
Where P's offence made more serious by fact that P's conduct causes particular result & we have shown S = 2ndary party to P's conduct-based offence, D will also be 2ndary party to more serious offence notwithstanding S didn't anticipate serious result.
Innocent agency: S's liability as P under innocent agency rules.
Michael
Facts: S gave X poison, but told her it was medicine for S's baby. Y, X's young son, gave the medicine to S's baby w/ fatal consequences.
Held: S convicted for wilful murder of the baby.
S liable where intentionally/unlawfully brought about condit
Innocent agency: non-proxyable crimes
Bourne
Facts: S coerced wife into having sex w/ dog (buggery). S convicted of aiding & abetting P's offence even though P could have pleaded duress.
Cogan & Leak
Facts: D invited P to have sex w/ wife, telling P this was desired by her. P believed D & had
Fundamental departure
Gamble
Facts: S drove P to V's house knowing P planned to knee-cap V. Instead, P cut V's throat.
Held: S not 2ndary party to murder. Outward act was fundamental departure from what S intended/foresaw.
NB: only applies to deliberate departures by P. S is l
The possibility of withdrawal
O'Flaherty
D must do enough to demonstrate withdrawal from joint enterprise. Ultimately Q of fact for jury. Account will be taken of assistance/encouragement given & how imminent infliction of injury is & nature of action constituting withdrawal. Not nece
Jogee
Facts:
S & P went to V's house to vent frustrations after thrown out earlier. While S outside damaging V's car, P cam inside & argued w/ V, stabbing him fatally w/ knife from kitchen counter.
P convicted of murder, as was S based on pre-Jogee direction th
How Jogee changed the law: abolition of parasitic accessorial liability
Requirements were:
1. D agreed to participate in crime A.
2. D foresaw possibility of crime B.
3. P had to commit crime B.
4. In way not fundamentally different from what D foresaw.
5. & as part of venture containing crime A.
What Jogee has replaced this
How Jogee changed the law: substitution of foresight with conditional intent
Intention to assist & intention that crime committed may be conditional.
Jogee: uncertainties created
Should we rephrase MR for 2ndary party:
S intends (at least conditionally) for conduct to assist/encourage P in committing offence, while knowing essential matter of P's offence.
Recall dual intent developed w/ help of decided cases:
S must intend not jus