Criminal Law: Complicity Part 2

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.