Criminal Law – 4ed (2024) Chapter 11 Parties To A Crime

• Students will be able to appropriately and effectively implement legal principles and rules at the level of a practice-ready newly qualified solicitor when addressing ethical and client-based problems related to parties to a crime
• Students are not usually required to recall specific case names or statutory authorities, this is for illustrative purposes only

Learning Outcomes

• Criminal liability extends beyond the main offender to secondary accomplices who encourage or assist in the crime
• Students can distinguish between main and secondary offenders
• Effectively analyze the criminal liability of an accomplice
• Understand when a secondary party can withdraw from the offense

Introduction to Parties to a Crime

• Criminal law intentionally has wide reach to deter and punish those instrumental in committing crimes in less obvious ways
• The law extends to those who assist or encourage, even without directly committing the offense
• The law allows multiple people to be charged with the same offense, despite the different roles they play

Terminology for Parties to a Crime

• A person who assists in a crime can be called an accomplice, accessory, or secondary party

Differences Between Parties to a Crime

• Principal offender commits the actus reus with the necessary mens rea
• Joint principals perform the actus reus and mens rea together
• Secondary party assists in some way without committing the actus reus

Real World examples

• Pat throws bricks and is liable as the direct principal offender for criminal damage.
• If Pat and Soji both throw bricks, they are joint principal offenders.
• If Arnie hands Pat the brick but doesn't throw it, he may face accomplice liability

Definition of Accomplice Liability

• Accomplice liability is set out in s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
• A person who aids, abets, or procures the commission of an offense is liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender
• A similar provision for summary offences exists under s 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
• A person who assists in committing an offense is as blameworthy under the law as the offender
• Conviction as an accomplice will face the same powers of punishment as the principal offender

Example

• Weimin asks his friend Quon to borrow his machete to kill Peng
• Quon agrees, Weimin attacks Peng with the machete, killing him
• Weimin is the principle offender and Quon is the accomplice
• Weimin is guilty of murder as a principle and faces a mandatory life sentence
• Quon faces the same life sentence
• Actus reus and mens rea requirements will differ for Weimin and Quon

Actus Reus

• Per the statute, an accomplice can satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability through: aiding, abetting, counseling, or procuring

Aiding

• Aiding may be when an accomplice criminally liable if they aided the principal offender in some manner
• Aiding means helping support the principle in some way so they are able to commit the offence
• Generally, it applies at the time of the offense or earlier
• It doesn't include those whose involvement is after the offense, includes separate offences such as disposing of evidence
• Aiding before an offence: provide the principle offender with weapons
• Specific crime tips (burglary) or instructing on committing internet fraud
• Aiding at the time of the offense: being a lookout, or holding the victim hostage while the principle assaults the victim

Abetting

• Abetting means the accomplice encourages the principal to commit the offence
• Abetting happens at the time of the offence during it's commission
• Words/actions can mean abetting the crime: the accused shouting specific words of encouragement or gesturing a punch

Counseling

• Counseling involves instigating or encouraging the principal to commit the offense
• It happens before the offense, which is different than abetting which is during the offense
• Examples: encouraging an assault by 'winding up' the principal offender

Procuring

• Procuring requires endeavoring the crime, different vs other three types of behaviours
• Procuring means to produce by endeavor - accused must achieve the particular state of offence
• It happens earlier on in time to the offence
• In practice, an accused secretly adds alcohol to their friend's drink, knowing the friend would shortly be driving home, contrary to s 5 of the RTA 1988

Mere Presence at the Scene

• Abetting requires proof that the accused was physically present with willful encouragement
• This requires proof that actions were taken (words/actions)
• Mere presence isn't enough if it encourages the principle
• A failure to intervene is insufficient

Overview Presence at The Scene

• Criminal liability will factor on different facts of the particular case with a presence at the scene
• Actus reus should amount to an accomplice
• An accomplice may be liable for their presence if: attendance was agreed by the principle (acts as a support); or the accused helped the principle at the scene of the crime

Summary of Actus Reus

• Aiding is help or assist and occurs during the offense
• Abet is encourage and occurs during the offense
• Counsel is instigate, solicit, encourage, either before or during the offence
• Procure by is produce by endeavor and happens before the offence

Links Between Principle and Accomplice

• The prosecution must establish that the parties have some way of liaising with each other to discuss the crime
• Is it is a requirement for there to be a link between them and does it matter if the principle would have committed the offence/encouragement from the accomplice?

Mental Link

• Described as a "meeting of minds" as a mental link between the principle and accomplice, but parties don't have to discuss beforehand
• There is no need for a causal link in case law so the prosecution doesn't need to establish any type of contact. Aiding/Abetting/Counseling will form contact

Causal Link

• The prosecution in procuring cases, must prove a causal link: principle and the accomplice
• Accomplice: causal link is someone who secretly adds alcohol to the principle drink by breaking the law for drink driving limit
• Aiding/Abetting/Counseling doesn't need causal link in order for the act to be committed

Summary of Metal and Causal Links

• Aiding does not require a mental or causal link
• Abet requires a mental link only
• Counsel requires a mental link only
• Procure requires a causal link only

Practical Application of Actus Reus liability

• Chrissie hires Arnold to kill Victor
• Duncan knows the plan and provides the weapon
• Ethan knows the plan and acts as a lookout driving Arnold
• Finn is at the scene and secretly hopes for the victim's death
• Gwen unlocks doors with shout encouragement and is close
• Heinz helps dispose the body afterwards

Relationships between the Principle and Accomplice

• The actus reus of the principal offense must occur for an accomplice to be criminally liable

Principle has a Defense

• In Cogan and Leak [1976] 1 QB 217, Leak's conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal
• Leak had encouraged Cogan to have sexual intercourse with his wife who would not consent
• Cogan was found not-guilty and was acquitted, Leak was convicted

Principle Cannot be Found

• Principal not always be found
• Rv Gnango [2011] UKSC 59 the defendant engaged in a shootout - the victim was then accidentally killed
• The other defendant was not arrested and was charged as an accomplice for murder

Innocent Agents

• Innocent agent commits actus reus of crime but is not guilty for lack of mens rea

Summary of Actus Reus

• There are different ways for accomplice liability to attract the law.
• Aiding during or before of the offence
• Abetting takes place during the offence
• Counseling/Procuring before hand
• Abetting/Counseling requires a mental link. Procurement uses a causal link
• The encouragement from the defendant may provide evidence for an encouragement of the principal offender, but prescience doesn't equate to encouragement

Real Life cases

• The Supreme Court concluded in the leading case of R v Jogee that the law on accomplice liability had gone astray
• Mens rea has two elements in relations to the act established
• The actus reus of accomplice liability has a deliberation when actions are advised and or procured
• Examples of a guilty actions are burglary
• An accomplice knows the knowledge or awareness of the circumstances of the principal offence (or venture)
• Committing to the crime with the plan or common purpose for more than one committing an offence with a criminal system

Intention to do the act or say the words

• the accused intentionally did assist or/and procures an offence whether advised or encouraged through words
• An accomplice does not need to be 100% of all the facts in order to be an accomplice legally
• An oxygen cutter was used in R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129, for a break and enter
• An accomplice's awareness is confirmed when in Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland 1978 1 WLR 1350

Accomplice has Full Knowledge

• The accomplice will satisfy this requirement if they intend for the principal to commit the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea
• If an accomplice knows the crime, then mens rea is easily established

Mens Rea Summary

• The diagram shows how the men's rea of an accomplice is applied.

Procuring, Abetting and Aiding

• Procuring, abetting and Aiding has real-world connection to whether the accomplice's mind is different than the principal
• A guilty accomplice can be guilty if having a lower or higher level of mans rea than the principle
• An example of a lack of intention to assister encourage is when an accident happened.
• Such cases can happen with the cases for murder/mass manslaughter as possible crimes

Parties and mens rea in a liability of principle offender

• The real-world explanation includes that in a example with two people that had blank ammunition and were lied to by the leader, the accomplice can be for murder
• Gilmour 2000 2 Cr App R 407 had the defendant driving two principals to a house where petrol bombed but only intended to cause grievious damage -- the principle was found for guilty and the accomlice was replaced with mass-slaughter

Liability of the Accomplice and how it goes beyond the plan

• Depending on the accused persons and participants, the situation goes beyond a joint venture
• They must make sure their scope of planning has consensus from each party with that is a possibility for them to give support and their backing, otherwise, they have no connection to any charge

Examples in a real-world scenario

• A man and a women planned to assist and get a man
• However, if one is unaware about one's action of a knife, and uses it on the estate the liability will not be applied for the overall evidence doesn't favor
• The law states that everyone involved has to support and know of each intent if it is to pass through as a joint venture

Real-world and men's rea practical application with the mens rea liability

• There can be disputes over who pays and the agreement is the same intention of each persons but circumstances can change
• The court takes into account factors to decide based on the crime as what point did it deter and become a joint venture

Summary of mens rea of accomplice liability

• there is a flow chart for the way to understand

11.17 Withdrawing participation

• Initially a defendant may be happy to be involved in the common plan, can the accused escape their involvement
• The brief answer is yes, provided the accused does effectively, how the defendant attempts and withdraws
• Case law implies that the accomplice tries to negate any action that can assist the planning of the accused - but did so to assist the principle

Withdrawing of Offence

• An accused has a change of heart, can remove the offence by having communication
• Example of not showing up when a place and time was organized/planned equates communication is vital

If so the Jury factors its position based on the following factor

• Try and persuade Quentin not to do the robbery
• Trying to get their key back from Quentin
• Asking of their company (particularly, the manager of supermarket)
• Informing the officer

Summary of Withdrawal

• Actions must be effective
• Action must have the intent
• If the jury decides that the accused has withdrawn from such plan

Withdrawing and The Plan

• To which an accused will depend to that to all of the jury of such case.
• The amount from which the crime that have to be proven towards actions has factors for a jury
• A flow charts for examples to withdraw from the offence

Sample Test Questions

• A girlfriend encourages his boyfriend to find "teach him a lesson" if he sees/finds him in a nightclub- he stumbles the guy and dies of his injuries, which describes what happened?
• The girlfriend encourages the principal by before the attack.