52 Questions
What was the significant change introduced by the case of R v Jogee with regards to complicity?
Foresight of the possibility of Ps offence is no longer sufficient to make D complicit
What is the requirement for the accessory in terms of the principal's mens rea?
The accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with the required 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
What is the requirement for D's conduct to be considered complicit?
D must intend to assist or encourage Ps offence
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
What is the essential requirement for D to be complicit in Ps offence?
D must intend to assist or encourage Ps offence
What is the requisite level of intention required for an accomplice to be liable for a principal offence?
Direct or indirect intent
In what type of scenario may an accomplice be liable despite not having intended the principal offence?
Joint criminal ventures
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
What is the principle established in the case of Chan Wing Siu?
Foresight suffices for mens rea
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
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
What is the principle established in the case of DPP for NI v Maxwell?
D must know the essential matters of the principal offence
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
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
What is the effect of the principal offender not having mens rea on the liability of an accomplice?
The accomplice is not liable
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
What is the effect of withdrawal on an accessory's liability?
Withdrawal has no effect on the accessory's liability for complicity
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
If the principal offender has a defence, the accessory can still be liable.
True
An accessory can only be liable for a principal offence if they intended every element of the offence.
False
A principal's ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of the accessory.
True
If D assisted or encouraged P, but later withdrew, they can still be liable as an accomplice.
True
An overwhelming supervening event can prevent an accessory from being liable.
True
The victim of an offence cannot be complicit in the same offence.
True
An accessory can only be liable if they had the same mens rea as the principal offender.
False
If the principal offence is a strict liability offence, the accessory can still be liable.
True
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
An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not intend every element of the offence.
True
Direct intent is the only type of intent that satisfies the mens rea requirement for complicity.
False
If the principal offender does not have mens rea, the accessory cannot be liable.
True
Foresight is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.
False
An accessory can be liable for a principal offence even if they did not know the exact details of the offence.
True
Conditional intent is not sufficient to establish mens rea for complicity.
False
If the principal offender commits a more serious offence than expected, the accessory is not liable.
False
An accessory must intend all aspects of the principal offence to be committed.
True
Ulterior mens rea can limit the liability of an accessory.
True
In cases of joint criminal ventures, the accessory can be liable on the basis of foresight.
True
Test your knowledge on the changes in criminal law regarding complicity, specifically the case of R v Jogee and its implications on aiding, abetting, or counselling. Understand the requirements for accessories and principals in criminal offences.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
