Summary
Summary Criminal Law - Participation
- Course
- Institution
includes complicity and joint enterprise.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
fgms
Reviews received
Content preview
PARTICIPATION (PARTIES TO A CRIME)Parties to a Crime: Group crime – EG: Conspiracy – 3 people agree to commit murder
General Theory of Participation:
2 approaches to situations involving multiple offenders:
1. Inchoate liability (lecture 15): liability is ‘incomplete’; there is criminal liability whether or not
the principal offence is committed
- Attempts (s1(1) CAA 1981), Conspiracy (s1 CLA 1977 and common law), Assisting or
encouraging (s44-47 SCA 2007)
2. Derivative liability (today): one person’s liability is derived from that of another person, who
commits the principal offence.
- Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring (s8 Alien Assisting Act 1861)
- Joint enterprise liability (old common law)
*Note: When answering a complicity question, start with the analysis of the principal offence/liability of P!
Principal of accomplice?
Not always obvious to identify the principal offender, but it is crucial that the courts do since the
liability of a PO and an accomplice is different.
Courts have struggled to maintain a clear separation of principal and accomplice, illustrated in
Gnango 2011 UKSC: D and P (unidentified referred to as ‘Bandana Man’) got into a gunfight. Both shot at
each other with the intention to kill or cause GBH. 1 of P’s shots missed D and hit V, innocent pedestrian. V
died and D was charged with murder under the doctrine of complicity. C court: guilty. COA: allowed appeal and
quashed D’s conviction. There was no common purpose between D and P.
- SC: allowed appeal, restoring liability (Lord Kerr dissenting).
D was liable because he assisted or encouraged P to shoot (Lords Phillips, Judge, Wilson)
or because he was a PO (Lord Clark)
or because he was a joint PO with P (Lords Brown, Clark, Dyson)
D as Principal Offender: D is PO if she completes AR and MR of principal offence.
D as co-principal: where there is more than one is doesn’t mean that 1 is PO and the others are
accessories. Where D and another (or others) each complete AR and MR of an offence, they commit
the offence as co-principal
- EG: D1 and D2 attack V with intention to kill or cause GBH and V dies, both will be liable for murder.
- However, where D doesn’t commit AR with P but does assist or encourage P – not liable. P free
informed choice breaks the chain of causation.
D as a PO via INNOCENT AGENCY: where D uses a party (A) as a tool to commit an offence, and
A is unaware of the circumstances that would make her acts criminal, D may still be liable as PO via
the Doctrine of Innocent Agency.
- Michael 1840: D, intending o kill her baby (V), gave nurse caring for V (A) a bottle of ‘medicine’ which
she asked A to administer. Bottle actually contained a drug that would kill V if administered at the dose
instructed by D. A didn’t administer the drug but left it on the mantelpiece. Whilst A was gone, her 5-yr-old
son (B) administered the drug to V, causing death. B didn’t have any knowledge of drug or its danger. D
was convicted of murder – actions of A and B were uninformed (they were innocent agents) and so D’s act
remained the cause of V’s death.
D as an accomplice - Derivative (Accomplice) Liability:
- Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s8 codifies complicity: ‘Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or
procure the commission of any indictable offence, … shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a
principal offender’
- Summary offences: Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s44
- D’s liability depends on what P does/is derivative of P’s liability but does not mean that P needs
to be convicted or even identified (EG: Gnango)
- Aiding, abetting counselling or procuring can happen before or during the offence- EG: advice,
material assistance, equipment, encouragement.
Punishable to the same extent as the principal for the main offence
Uncertainty whether D is PO or accomplice: if it can be proved that D either killed V as PO or was
an accomplice, then D may be convicted of the principal offence without the prosecution having to
prove which role she played.
- Giannetto 1997: D threatened to kill wife (V) hired A to kill her. V was killed, but it couldn’t be proved
who killed her. D was charged with murder on the basis that he either killed V or was an accomplice. CC
convicted and COA upheld on appeal.
, - ‘D’s state of mind in intending that the offence be committed connects D to the offence and the resulting
harm in a morally significant way that can only be properly reflected by convicting D of the offence rather
than encouraging/assisting the offence.’ (Law Commission)
COMPLICITY
AR D aids, abets, counsels or procures P to commit a principal offence
‘Aid’: to help/support/assist. ‘Abet’: to incite/instigate/encourage
‘Counsel’: to advise/encourage ‘Procure’: ‘to produce by endeavour’
Aiding & abetting (etc.) does not require the existence of an agreement between D and P (or, D1, D2,
D3 etc)
A-G’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) 1975: D spiked P’s drink, knowing P would be driving later. D guilty of
procuring P’s offence; the offence has no MR – P commits driving offence: “[The principal offence] has been
procured because, unknown to the driver and without his collaboration, he has been put in a position in which in
fact he has committed an offence which he never would have committed otherwise.”
Clarkson 1971: D1 & D2 entered a room where a woman was being raped by other soldiers. No evidence that
they provided any assistance or encouragement beyond their choice to enter and remain present. Court-martial:
guilty of rape. Court-martial appeal court: allowed appeal. there was insufficient proof as to MR.
- Voluntary presence is capable of satisfying the AR of complicity. (In case: no intent to A&A)
Coney 1882: D’s presence at illegal prize fights = capable of encouraging as such fights would
not happen without an audience
D may also become complicit in P’s offence by omission. Arises in 2 circumstances:
1. Where P’s omission arises as a breach of a recognised duty to act – EG: familial duties – D does
nothing whilst wife drowns their child (Russell 1933)
2. Omission based encouragement: applies where D has a power or right to control the actions of P,
but deliberately refrains from doing so. - Du Cros v Lambourne 1907: D was charged with
driving at a dangerous speed. However, it couldn’t be proved whether he was a passenger or the
driver. passenger/owner has power to intervene.
Stringer 2011: there must be some connecting link between D’s conduct and the principal offence
(but no causation).
Bryce 2004: Driving P to a place to enable P killed V. Despite 12-hour delay D’s acts still provided some
assistance to the murder
Giannetto 1997: Simply nodding when told of a plan could amount to encouragement
R v Cogan & Leak 1976: D procured P’s rape of D’s wife, V. P = innocent, though not an ‘innocent
agent’ as rape cannot be committed through an innocent agent. (now, with SOA 2003 – lack of
reasonable belief in consent?)
MR:
Not consistently identified or applied by the courts - Jogee 2016 changed the previous law.
Jogee 2016: D and P went to V’s house and P took a knife from kitchen and killed V. D intended P to
confront V with violence, and foresaw the possibility of serious harm being caused, but didn’t intend it. CC:
guilty of murder as accomplice. COA: Upheld conviction - SC: allowed appeal, ordered retrials. Complicity
liability requires D to intend to assist or encourage P to commit the principle offence with MR – foresight is
no longer sufficient for liability; D must intend to assist or encourage the whole offence.
D’s mens rea as to her own conduct:
1. D’s own conduct (i.e. assisting, encouraging or procuring) must be voluntary
2. D must intend to assist, encourage or procure the commission by P of the act which constitutes or
results in the principal offence, (direct or oblique intent)
- National Coal Board v Gamble 1959: D supplied coal to P. at the weigh-station, before p was able
to leave with the coal. P’s lorry was overladen to the extent that taking the lorry on the road became an
offence. D let P leave anyway. D convicted of being an accomplice to P’s offence.
- obliquely intending to assist overloaded lorry driver (Woollin test)
- Gnango: D was held to have obliquely assisted P in killing V
D’s mens rea as to P’s conduct:
P commits the principal offence as D expected:
General rule in Johnson v Youden 1950: at the time of assisting, encouraging or procuring D must
‘know the essential matters’ of P’s offence
Rather than a requirement of knowledge, or belief, courts began to interpret ‘knowledge’ in this
context as being satisfied by mere ‘foresight’ of a risk.
became ‘foresight’:
- Chan Wing-Siu 1985: D & 2 others went to V’s house with knives to rob him. V was stabbed and
killed, and his wife was wounded. D foresaw but didn’t intend that 1 of his co-accused might act with
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller fgms. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.46. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now