Criminal Law: Complicity Part 2

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

What was the significant change introduced by the case of R v Jogee with regards to complicity?

D must have knowledge of any existing facts or circumstances necessary for the principals conduct to be criminal

D can only be complicit if they are physically present at the scene of the crime

Foresight of the possibility of Ps offence is no longer sufficient to make D complicit (correct)

D can only be complicit if they directly commit the offence

What is the requirement for the accessory in terms of the principal's mens rea?

The accessory's mens rea is irrelevant

The accessory must have the same mens rea as the principal

The accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with the required mens rea (correct)

The accessory must have knowledge of the principal's mens rea

What is the exception to the rule that the accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal's conduct?

Innocent agency and procuring an AR (correct)

When the accessory is under duress

When the principal is under 16 years old

When the principal is mentally incapacitated

What is the requirement for D's conduct to be considered complicit?

D must intend to assist or encourage Ps offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the National Coal Board v Gamble case?

It demonstrates that D can be complicit even if they do not directly commit the offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the essential requirement for D to be complicit in Ps offence?

D must intend to assist or encourage Ps offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the requisite level of intention required for an accomplice to be liable for a principal offence?

Direct or indirect intent Signup and view all the answers

In what type of scenario may an accomplice be liable despite not having intended the principal offence?

Joint criminal ventures Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is committed as expected?

D must know the essential matters of the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the principle established in the case of Chan Wing Siu?

Foresight suffices for mens rea Signup and view all the answers

In what type of scenario may an accomplice be liable despite not having intended every element of the principal offence?

When the principal offence is a strict liability offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is committed but is less serious than expected?

D must have known the essential matters of the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the principle established in the case of DPP for NI v Maxwell?

D must know the essential matters of the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is a strict liability offence?

D must have known the essential matters of the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the principle established in the case of Thorton v Mitchell?

An accomplice cannot be liable if the principal offender does not have mens rea Signup and view all the answers

What is the effect of the principal offender not having mens rea on the liability of an accomplice?

The accomplice is not liable Signup and view all the answers

What is the general principle regarding the liability of a principle (P) and an accessory (D) in a crime?

P's liability is independent of D's liability Signup and view all the answers

What is an exception to the principle that a principle's liability limits their own liability, but not that of the accessory?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the R v Bourne case?

It confirmed that an accessory can be liable even if the principle has a defence Signup and view all the answers

What is the consequence of an accessory's ulterior mens rea limiting their liability?

The accessory is only liable for the offence they intended to assist Signup and view all the answers

What is the logic behind the rule that an accessory is liable for a more serious outcome, even if they did not foresee it, in cases of constructive liability?

The accessory should take the consequences of their actions Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the R v Bristow case?

It confirmed that an accessory can be liable for a more serious outcome, even if they did not foresee it, in cases of constructive liability Signup and view all the answers

What is the test for determining if an accessory is complicit in a principal offence?

If the principal offence is sufficiently similar to what the accessory intended Signup and view all the answers

What is an overwhelming supervening event (OSE) in the context of complicity?

An event that is a fundamental difference between the accessory's intention and the principal offence Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the R v English case?

It confirmed that an OSE can be found if the principal offence is fundamentally different from what the accessory intended Signup and view all the answers

What is the effect of withdrawal on an accessory's liability?

Withdrawal has no effect on the accessory's liability for complicity Signup and view all the answers

Before the R v Jogee case, an accomplice could be liable for a principal offence despite not having intended to assist or encourage the principal's conduct.

True Signup and view all the answers

According to the R v Jogee case, an accomplice must have knowledge of the principal's mens rea to be liable for the principal offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of National Coal Board v Gamble, the defendant was held not liable as an accomplice because they did not intend for the principal to commit the offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

An accomplice can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not intend to assist or encourage the principal's conduct, as long as they had foresight of the possibility of the offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

In the case of R v Jogee, the court held that an accomplice must have the same mens rea as the principal to be liable for the principal offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

The R v Jogee case changed the law to require that an accomplice must have intended to assist or encourage the principal's conduct, rather than just having foresight of the possibility of the offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

If D intends P to commit GBH, D can be liable for murder even if they did not foresee the chance of death being caused.

True Signup and view all the answers

If the principal offender has a defence, the accessory can still be liable.

True Signup and view all the answers

An accessory can only be liable for a principal offence if they intended every element of the offence.

False Signup and view all the answers

A principal's ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of the accessory.

True Signup and view all the answers

If D assisted or encouraged P, but later withdrew, they can still be liable as an accomplice.

True Signup and view all the answers

An overwhelming supervening event can prevent an accessory from being liable.

True Signup and view all the answers

The victim of an offence cannot be complicit in the same offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

An accessory can only be liable if they had the same mens rea as the principal offender.

False Signup and view all the answers

If the principal offence is a strict liability offence, the accessory can still be liable.

True Signup and view all the answers

D can be liable for a more serious outcome if they intended the principal offence, even if they did not foresee the greater harm.

True Signup and view all the answers

An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not intend every element of the offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

Direct intent is the only type of intent that satisfies the mens rea requirement for complicity.

False Signup and view all the answers

If the principal offender does not have mens rea, the accessory cannot be liable.

True Signup and view all the answers

Foresight is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.

False Signup and view all the answers

An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not know the exact details of the offence.

True Signup and view all the answers

Conditional intent is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.

False Signup and view all the answers

If the principal offender commits a more serious offence than expected, the accessory is not liable.

False Signup and view all the answers

An accessory must intend all aspects of the principal offence to be committed.

True Signup and view all the answers

Ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of an accessory.

True Signup and view all the answers

In cases of joint criminal ventures, the accessory can be liable on the basis of foresight.

True Signup and view all the answers

Criminal Law: Complicity Part 2

Choose a study mode

Podcast

Questions and Answers

What was the significant change introduced by the case of R v Jogee with regards to complicity?

What is the requirement for the accessory in terms of the principal's mens rea?

What is the exception to the rule that the accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal's conduct?

What is the requirement for D's conduct to be considered complicit?

What is the significance of the National Coal Board v Gamble case?

What is the essential requirement for D to be complicit in Ps offence?

What is the requisite level of intention required for an accomplice to be liable for a principal offence?

In what type of scenario may an accomplice be liable despite not having intended the principal offence?

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is committed as expected?

What is the principle established in the case of Chan Wing Siu?

In what type of scenario may an accomplice be liable despite not having intended every element of the principal offence?

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is committed but is less serious than expected?

What is the principle established in the case of DPP for NI v Maxwell?

What is the requirement for an accomplice to be liable when the principal offence is a strict liability offence?

What is the principle established in the case of Thorton v Mitchell?

What is the effect of the principal offender not having mens rea on the liability of an accomplice?

What is the general principle regarding the liability of a principle (P) and an accessory (D) in a crime?

What is an exception to the principle that a principle's liability limits their own liability, but not that of the accessory?

What is the significance of the R v Bourne case?

What is the consequence of an accessory's ulterior mens rea limiting their liability?

What is the logic behind the rule that an accessory is liable for a more serious outcome, even if they did not foresee it, in cases of constructive liability?

What is the significance of the R v Bristow case?

What is the test for determining if an accessory is complicit in a principal offence?

What is an overwhelming supervening event (OSE) in the context of complicity?

What is the significance of the R v English case?

What is the effect of withdrawal on an accessory's liability?

Before the R v Jogee case, an accomplice could be liable for a principal offence despite not having intended to assist or encourage the principal's conduct.

According to the R v Jogee case, an accomplice must have knowledge of the principal's mens rea to be liable for the principal offence.

In the case of National Coal Board v Gamble, the defendant was held not liable as an accomplice because they did not intend for the principal to commit the offence.

An accomplice can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not intend to assist or encourage the principal's conduct, as long as they had foresight of the possibility of the offence.

In the case of R v Jogee, the court held that an accomplice must have the same mens rea as the principal to be liable for the principal offence.

The R v Jogee case changed the law to require that an accomplice must have intended to assist or encourage the principal's conduct, rather than just having foresight of the possibility of the offence.

If D intends P to commit GBH, D can be liable for murder even if they did not foresee the chance of death being caused.

If the principal offender has a defence, the accessory can still be liable.

An accessory can only be liable for a principal offence if they intended every element of the offence.

A principal's ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of the accessory.

If D assisted or encouraged P, but later withdrew, they can still be liable as an accomplice.

An overwhelming supervening event can prevent an accessory from being liable.

The victim of an offence cannot be complicit in the same offence.

An accessory can only be liable if they had the same mens rea as the principal offender.

If the principal offence is a strict liability offence, the accessory can still be liable.

D can be liable for a more serious outcome if they intended the principal offence, even if they did not foresee the greater harm.

An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not intend every element of the offence.

Direct intent is the only type of intent that satisfies the mens rea requirement for complicity.

If the principal offender does not have mens rea, the accessory cannot be liable.

Foresight is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.

An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not know the exact details of the offence.

Conditional intent is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.

If the principal offender commits a more serious offence than expected, the accessory is not liable.

An accessory must intend all aspects of the principal offence to be committed.

Ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of an accessory.

In cases of joint criminal ventures, the accessory can be liable on the basis of foresight.

More Like This

Understanding Complicity in Criminal Law

Test on Criminal Law and Complicity

Criminal Law: Complicity Part 1

Egyptian Criminal Law: General Principles