Lecture topic 8- S2
Thursday, 29 February 2024 13:57
Complicity liability (actus reus)
• Conduct
○ Assist (‘Aid’)
○ Encourage (‘Abet’/’Counsel’)
○ ‘Procure’
• Threshold for liability
○ Mere presence as encouragement?
○ Omissions and duties
Modes of participation
• Identifying and separating the roles
○ Principal – the person whose acts/omissions satisfy the actus reus
§ e.g. Murder | P causes V’s death
○ Accomplice – assists or encourages P to commit the offence
§ e.g. Murder | A hands P the murder weapon
• a) Scenario 1 – As a principal
○ No complicity here
○ P completes actus reus
○ P has mens rea
○ P has no defence
• (b) Scenario 2 – As joint principals
○ e.g. Murder (or a killing for now)
○ P1 and P2 attack V (independently + simultaneously)
○ V dies of the combined effect of the blows
○ Assume P1 and P2 both have mens rea (if not, Mur. + Con. Man.)
○ This is really a matter of causation!
○ Factual + Legal (Subs. + Blam. + Opera.)
○ What if P1 was the H.W. champ of the world (their punch the singular cause)…?
• c) Scenario 3 – As a principal through an innocent agent (IA)
○ IA causes harm to V, but is not to blame (lacking capacity/awareness)!
§ e.g. P gives IA poison to give V and V dies
○ P causes IA to perform the actus reus
○ IA’s actions are not informed, so no N.A.I.
○ Michael – mother/poison/nurse/baby/5 y.o. son/baby dies
○ Cogan & Leak – P/IA/wife/sex/no consent/rape…?/P’s own penis not necessary
○ What about bigamy (not on syllabus)? | Problems for IA doctr. with offence def.
○ Can ‘procuring’ save the day? | Can you be an accomplice to a non-crime?
• d) Scenario 4 – As an accomplice (A)
○ The law
§ Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8 (set out fully in handout)
§ Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.44 (1)
§ Joint Enterprise Liability
○ P commits an offence (informed choice!); A does not perform actus reus, but ai
○ Really only assisting/encouraging/procuring (+ now, joint enterprise)
○ A is tried, convicted and punished as if…? | Fair labelling?
Thursday, 29 February 2024 13:57
Complicity liability (actus reus)
• Conduct
○ Assist (‘Aid’)
○ Encourage (‘Abet’/’Counsel’)
○ ‘Procure’
• Threshold for liability
○ Mere presence as encouragement?
○ Omissions and duties
Modes of participation
• Identifying and separating the roles
○ Principal – the person whose acts/omissions satisfy the actus reus
§ e.g. Murder | P causes V’s death
○ Accomplice – assists or encourages P to commit the offence
§ e.g. Murder | A hands P the murder weapon
• a) Scenario 1 – As a principal
○ No complicity here
○ P completes actus reus
○ P has mens rea
○ P has no defence
• (b) Scenario 2 – As joint principals
○ e.g. Murder (or a killing for now)
○ P1 and P2 attack V (independently + simultaneously)
○ V dies of the combined effect of the blows
○ Assume P1 and P2 both have mens rea (if not, Mur. + Con. Man.)
○ This is really a matter of causation!
○ Factual + Legal (Subs. + Blam. + Opera.)
○ What if P1 was the H.W. champ of the world (their punch the singular cause)…?
• c) Scenario 3 – As a principal through an innocent agent (IA)
○ IA causes harm to V, but is not to blame (lacking capacity/awareness)!
§ e.g. P gives IA poison to give V and V dies
○ P causes IA to perform the actus reus
○ IA’s actions are not informed, so no N.A.I.
○ Michael – mother/poison/nurse/baby/5 y.o. son/baby dies
○ Cogan & Leak – P/IA/wife/sex/no consent/rape…?/P’s own penis not necessary
○ What about bigamy (not on syllabus)? | Problems for IA doctr. with offence def.
○ Can ‘procuring’ save the day? | Can you be an accomplice to a non-crime?
• d) Scenario 4 – As an accomplice (A)
○ The law
§ Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8 (set out fully in handout)
§ Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.44 (1)
§ Joint Enterprise Liability
○ P commits an offence (informed choice!); A does not perform actus reus, but ai
○ Really only assisting/encouraging/procuring (+ now, joint enterprise)
○ A is tried, convicted and punished as if…? | Fair labelling?
