Parties to crime - descriptive notes by a criminal lecturer, with a lot of detail and case notes PDF

Preview

Summary

descriptive notes by a criminal lecturer, with a lot of detail and case notes...

Description

1

Parties to Crime

nWhosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender. qS8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. 3 nKey principle then is: qAn accomplice to an actual perpetrator can be convicted of the same offence. qEg a getaway driver who assists someone commit a murder. nWho we shall address as D and P. n nKey problem however: qThe law on complicity has ‘developed haphazardly and is permeated with uncertainty’. nLaw Commission, Participating in Crime (2007) 4

Inevitable complexity nD’s actus reus.

nD’s mens rea as to own conduct. + nD’s mens rea as to a future principal offence being committed by X. + nThe actual commission of the principal offence by X. Policy Problems nPractical concern outweighs strict logic... 5

qHutton L in Powell and English [1999] AC 1. n n‘Gang’ violence. n 6 20/02/2021

1

5

n 6

Bedfordshire Police: What is a gang?

nA gang is usually considered to be a group of people who spend time in public places that see themselves (and are seen by others) as a noticeable group, and engage in a range of criminal activity and violence. qif the majority of offending is of a lower non-violent level then they would be considered a peer group not a gang. nA criminal network (which is different to a gang) is: A group of individuals involved in persistent criminality... which is causing significant harm to the community... nn Examples nGnango [2011] UKSC 59 7

qD and P, following a chance encounter, got into a gun fight. qEach shoots at the other with intent to kill or GBH. qP kills V, a passing pedestrian. q[P is convicted of murder]. qD charged with murder on basis of complicity. 8

Gnango [2011] UKSC 59

nCrown Court: D guilty as D and P jointly concerned with an affray and D foresaw the chance of murder. qCoA: conviction quashed – no common purpose. nSupreme Court – liability restored – but why? qD assisted or encouraged P to shoot (Philips, Judge, Wilson Ls). qD was a principal offender (Clark L). qD was joint principal with P (Brown. Clark. Dyson Ls). nEach base of liability ‘questionable and imprecise’ Child & Omerod 2017. n 9

nWallett and Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB)

20/02/2021

2 9

nWallett and Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) qTwo motorists drive alongside each other on a dual carriageway at speeds approaching twice the speed limit, each determined to be the first to reach the point where the road narrows to a single lane and refusing to give way to the other. qAs the road begins to narrow, the motorist in the inner lane loses control of his vehicle and collides with other vehicles on the opposite carriageway, sustaining fatal injuries.

10

Wallett v Vickers n‘Common goal’ was that each intended to be the first to reach 11

the point where the road narrowed. q[T]hat is not a common purpose or intent in the sense in which that phrase is used in the law of criminal joint enterprise. nRather than working together or encouraging each other to achieve a shared objective, each man was seeking to achieve his own objective which would necessarily mean frustrating the other. qFar from wishing the other to drive dangerously, it seems highly probable that each would have preferred that the other should slow down and give way n[...] there is no basis here for any finding that the deceased intended to encourage the defendant to drive dangerously. Wallett v Vickers n[T]he most that can be said is that each man intended to drive 12

in a way which would beat the other to the point where the road narrowed.

nAlthough the Recorder found that this had the effect of encouraging the other to drive dangerously, I conclude that he did not make a finding that this was what the deceased n‘I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the two individuals who were responsible for driving the motor vehicles, namely the deceased and the Defendant, had become engaged in a joint criminal activity. I find that each of their driving behaviours effectively encouraged and maintained the driving of the other’. qSheffield County Court Recorder. 20/02/2021 3 13 14 12

encouraging the other to drive dangerously, I conclude that he did not make a finding that this was what the deceased intended and, moreover, that if he had done so such a finding would not have been justified. nIt follows that the Recorder's finding of a criminal joint enterprise cannot stand and that the appeal must be allowed. n 13 14

Principal or Accomplice?

nD is a principal offender if she commits the mens rea and actus reus elements of the principal offence. qStandard form of liability nD is co-principal where each (D + other) complete the actus reus and mens rea of an offence. nInnocent agency qWhere D uses another as a tool to commit the offence, and that party is unaware of the circumstances, D may be a principal offender. qOne will qualify as an innocent agent if she acts without essential knowledge/ is under the age of criminal responsibility/ legally insane.

nD as accomplice qD is accomplice, where, rather than committing the actus reus, she assists or encourages. qD’s liability derives from Perp’s conduct. q 16

Complicity nAiding (assisting)

nAbetting (encouraging) nCounselling (encouraging) qProcuring (produce by endeavour) n nCommence by identifying the crime the Principal has committed, before discussing D’s actus reus and mens rea in 17 20/02/2021

15 4

nCommence by identifying the crime the Principal has committed, before discussing D’s actus reus and mens rea in relation to that principal offence. Aiding (assisting) nD may assist P at time P commits principal offence, or in 17

advance of the offence. n nD may satisfy this even if P does not want the assistance, or is unaware of it. 18 Abetting (encouraging) nD can encourage positively by emboldening or instigating/ encourage negatively by threatening. nMere presence is capable of constituting an act of encouragement. 19

nWilcox v Geoffrey [1951] 1 All ER 464.

qD, audience member and music critic, guilty as accomplice in P’s offence of playing a jazz concert without permission to work in UK. nClarkson [1971] 3 All ER 344. qDs entered a room in their barracks where a woman was being raped. They remained present. No evidence of additional assistance or encouragement. qCourt Martial Appeal Court – voluntary presence is capable of satisfying actus reus of complicity but insufficient proof, on the facts, as to mens rea. 20

Counselling (encouraging) nSame meaning as Abetting...

qPreviously counselling was restricted to conduct occurring in advance of principal offence. n nEach of aid/abet/counsel may occur through omission. qBreach of recognised duty to act + qWhere D has a power or right to control the actions of P but refrains from doing so. nEg Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40 n 21 20/02/2021

5

nEg Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40 n 21

Complicity & Causation

nHaving established that D’s conduct is capable of assisting or encouraging P’s principal offence, next Q is whether it must do so in fact? qD’s conduct need not have caused P to commit offence in the sense of ‘but for’. qBut D’s conduct must have some relevance to the

commission of the principal offence... some relevance... n Complicity & Causation nD drove P to a place to enable P to kill V. D foresaw that P 22

would kill V. P did kill V. nHowever, P only killed V 12 hours later, and following discussion with another party. nD charged with murder as accomplice. nCourt of Appeal – upheld conviction. Despite time delay, D’s acts continued to provide some assistance to the murder. qBryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231. 23

Complicity & Causation

nTo establish a connection between D’s encouragement and P’s offence, it must be proved that D’s encouragement was communicated to P. qP must know D is encouraging her. qAgain, no ‘but for’ test – the least bit of encouragement which might embolden or fortify P’s intention satisfies the actus reus for complicity. [If P does not act on encouragement D may yet be liable for an inchoate offence] 24

Procuring

nTo produce by endeavour – for example D causes the unknowing P to commit a strict liability offence......