UNIT 8 - Attempts and Accomplice Liability -
1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding of how the scope of criminal liability extends
beyond those who commit a crime (the principal offender) to those who attempt to
commit a crime or who encourage or assist the principal to commit an offence
(secondary parties).
2. Apply your comprehensive knowledge of the statutory offence of attempt to analyse
some factual scenarios.
3. Tackle and solve problem questions involving secondary parties by critically evaluating
whether a range of defendants have satisfied the actus reus and mens rea of accomplice
liability.
ATTEMPT -
S1 (1) Criminal Attempt Act 1981 - “If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of
the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”
Actus Reus Definition
An act - Cannot be an omission in any circumstance
- S1 (2) Impossibility does not prevent AR from being
established (e.g., pickpocketing an empty pocket)
- S1 (4) Attempting to be an accomplice is not sufficient
Which is more then merely - Significant steps need to be taken but it is not
preparatory to the necessary to have completed everything that they
commission of the offence need to do R v Jones – held gun to head
- Must have embarked upon the crime proper which is
a question of fact for the jury R v Gullefer
Mens Rea Definition
Intent to commit the offence - For criminal damage and result crimes i.e. murder,
intention must be present, recklessness is not
sufficient (despite being adequate for the offence
itself) R v Whybrow - murder, R v Millard and Vernon -
CD
- For aggravated CD they must intend damage but may
be reckless as to endangerment to life AG No.3 1992
- If recklessness to existing circumstances (e.g. CD -
recklessness as to whether property belongs to
another) is sufficient for full offence it will be sufficient
for an attempt R v Khan
- Conditional intent is sufficient
- Satisfying ulterior intent will suffice for criminal charge
- Impossibility = does not prevent MR if on the facts as
, they believed them to be they would have had intent
S1(3) and R v Shivpuri - talcum powder, drugs
ACCOMPLIACE LIABILITY
Principal offender:
Those who commit the AR of the offence, can have co-principles where there a
multiple principal offenders
Can be charged as a principal offender where they have used a innocent agent to
commit the AR
Secondary offender/accomplices: subject to same conditions as principal offenders
S8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 - “whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the
commission of any indictable offence…shall be tried, indicted and punished as a principal
offender” - for either way/indictable offences
S44 Magistrates Court Act 1980 - for summary offences
Actus Reus Definition
Aid Give physical assistance to help the principal offender - no
mental/casual link needed
Abet Give encouragement at the time of the offence – requires evidence of
‘willful encouragement’ e.g. intending to encourage the offence -
probably mental link but not casual
Counsel Not physical assistance but advice or encouragement - probably
mental link but not casual – case of Bryce 2004 says casual link is
necessary?
Procure Bring about the offence - not mental link but casual is required
Any involvement after the offence has been committed will not amount to accomplice
liability - dependant on involvement before or at the time of the offence
Primary offender must satisfy at least AR for accomplice liability R v Dias
May still be liable even if PO is acquitted on the basis of a valid defence R v Cogan and
Leak
R v Clarkson - mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient unless there was
prior arrangement with the principal
Exceptions:
o paying for a ticket to an illegal event could amount to encouragement of the
crime Wilcox v Jeffrey
o Silence could amount to encouragement where you have a duty to
intervene/control the actions of the primary offender
Du Cros v Lambourne (speeding)
Tuck v Robson (after hours drinking)
R v Russell and Russell (child abuse)
1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding of how the scope of criminal liability extends
beyond those who commit a crime (the principal offender) to those who attempt to
commit a crime or who encourage or assist the principal to commit an offence
(secondary parties).
2. Apply your comprehensive knowledge of the statutory offence of attempt to analyse
some factual scenarios.
3. Tackle and solve problem questions involving secondary parties by critically evaluating
whether a range of defendants have satisfied the actus reus and mens rea of accomplice
liability.
ATTEMPT -
S1 (1) Criminal Attempt Act 1981 - “If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section
applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of
the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”
Actus Reus Definition
An act - Cannot be an omission in any circumstance
- S1 (2) Impossibility does not prevent AR from being
established (e.g., pickpocketing an empty pocket)
- S1 (4) Attempting to be an accomplice is not sufficient
Which is more then merely - Significant steps need to be taken but it is not
preparatory to the necessary to have completed everything that they
commission of the offence need to do R v Jones – held gun to head
- Must have embarked upon the crime proper which is
a question of fact for the jury R v Gullefer
Mens Rea Definition
Intent to commit the offence - For criminal damage and result crimes i.e. murder,
intention must be present, recklessness is not
sufficient (despite being adequate for the offence
itself) R v Whybrow - murder, R v Millard and Vernon -
CD
- For aggravated CD they must intend damage but may
be reckless as to endangerment to life AG No.3 1992
- If recklessness to existing circumstances (e.g. CD -
recklessness as to whether property belongs to
another) is sufficient for full offence it will be sufficient
for an attempt R v Khan
- Conditional intent is sufficient
- Satisfying ulterior intent will suffice for criminal charge
- Impossibility = does not prevent MR if on the facts as
, they believed them to be they would have had intent
S1(3) and R v Shivpuri - talcum powder, drugs
ACCOMPLIACE LIABILITY
Principal offender:
Those who commit the AR of the offence, can have co-principles where there a
multiple principal offenders
Can be charged as a principal offender where they have used a innocent agent to
commit the AR
Secondary offender/accomplices: subject to same conditions as principal offenders
S8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 - “whoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the
commission of any indictable offence…shall be tried, indicted and punished as a principal
offender” - for either way/indictable offences
S44 Magistrates Court Act 1980 - for summary offences
Actus Reus Definition
Aid Give physical assistance to help the principal offender - no
mental/casual link needed
Abet Give encouragement at the time of the offence – requires evidence of
‘willful encouragement’ e.g. intending to encourage the offence -
probably mental link but not casual
Counsel Not physical assistance but advice or encouragement - probably
mental link but not casual – case of Bryce 2004 says casual link is
necessary?
Procure Bring about the offence - not mental link but casual is required
Any involvement after the offence has been committed will not amount to accomplice
liability - dependant on involvement before or at the time of the offence
Primary offender must satisfy at least AR for accomplice liability R v Dias
May still be liable even if PO is acquitted on the basis of a valid defence R v Cogan and
Leak
R v Clarkson - mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient unless there was
prior arrangement with the principal
Exceptions:
o paying for a ticket to an illegal event could amount to encouragement of the
crime Wilcox v Jeffrey
o Silence could amount to encouragement where you have a duty to
intervene/control the actions of the primary offender
Du Cros v Lambourne (speeding)
Tuck v Robson (after hours drinking)
R v Russell and Russell (child abuse)
