Conspiracy, Aiding & Abetting, Joint

EnterpriseGeneral overview

Overview

The law has three main weapons against group offences: conspiracy, aiding & abetting, and joint enterprise.

They often overlap.

What's the legal framework around each concept?

What are the similarities and differences?

Overview

Aiding & abetting

Help, encourage etc.

Conspiracy

Group planning

& agreement.

Joint enterprise

Gang attacks etc.

Objectives

By the end of this session, all learners will:

1) Be able to distinguish between aiding & abetting, joint enterprise, and conspiracy.

2) Be able to apply these concepts to case studies.

Conspiracy

At least two people form an agreement to commit a crime.

Section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

Conspiracy

You cannot be guilty of conspiracy if you are:

a) Husband and wife.

b) Under the age of consent.

c) The intended victim of the crime.

Section 2(2) Criminal Law Act 1977

Wheel Conspiracy

X

D1 D2

D3

D4D5

D6

Chain Conspiracy

D1 D2 D3 D4

Conspiracy - Key Principle

R v Meyrick (1929): All that matters is that there is a criminal purpose held in common between them.

Conspiracy - Intention to Participate?

R v Siracusa (1989): It is not necessary to prove an intention to take part in the criminal offence. You can be a silent partner in the conspiracy.

Conspiracy - Mens Rea

Section 1(2) Criminal Law Act 1977

You must know that you are agreeing to a criminal act.

Suspecting that it might be a criminal act is not enough.

R v Saik (2006): D owned a bureau de change and suspected that the money he was converting was stolen. He was not guilty of conspiracy because he did not know for a fact that it was stolen.

Aiding & Abetting

Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, section 8:

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure any offence...shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

Aiding & Abetting - Definitions

Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975):

The words "aid, abet, counsel and procure" shall be given their ordinary meaning.

Aid - Help and assistance.

Abet - Encouragement, generally during the crime.

Counsel - Encouragement, generally before the crime.

Procure - To "produce by endeavour".

Aiding and Abetting - Examples

Aiding: providing a gun, acting as a lookout, being the driver.

Abetting: Shouting words of encouragement during an assault or battery.

Counseling: Giving a pep talk before the offence.

Procuring: Slipping vodka into someone's Coca Cola, causing them to drink drive.

Aiding & Abetting - Actus Reus

R v Clarkson (1971): Two soldiers walked in on a fellow soldier who was raping a woman. They stood and watched.

Found not guilty because their mere presence was not enough to actually aid, abet, or counsel.

Aiding & Abetting - Actus Reus

Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975)

P must be aware that he is acting with the authority or encouragement of D.

If I give you a knife and persuade you to use it to kill Jeff, and you use it to kill Sarah, I am not guilty of aiding & abetting Sarah's murder.

Procuring

A little different to the other offences.

Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975)

D spiked P's drink and cause him to drink drive.

He wanted to see P drink drive and he took steps to bring it about.

Implies causation - you must be the cause of P's criminal act.

Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea

1) Intention or belief that the act will encourage or assist or - in the case of procuring - bring the offence about.

2) Knowledge of the type of crime that P is likely to commit, along with the type of mens rea that P is likely to have.

Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea

Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland

D drove P to a spot where he was going to commit murder.

D was horrified, and hoped that the murder would not go ahead as planned.

GUILTY - He intended his driving to assist, and he knew they type of crime that P was likely to commit.

Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea

R v Bainbridge (1959)

D purchased some oxygen cutting equipment for P, who was going to use it to rob a bank.

Argued in court that he was innocent because he didn't know which bank would be robbed and when.

GUILTY - You don't need to know the specific details, just the type of crime.

Joint Enterprise

Supposed to cure the problem of causation where it is impossible to identify who landed the killer blow.

If a gang of five people kick a man to death, all five will be convicted of murder even though you might only have repeatedly kicked him in the leg.

Joint Enterprise

Three requirements:

1) D must have foresight that P may commit a certain crime.

2) D must foresee that P will have the required mens rea for that crime.

3) The crime must occur during the course of the joint enterprise.

Joint Enterprise

R v English (1997)

D and E took part in a joint enterprise to batter a police officer with wooden posts.

E suddenly produced a knife and stabbed the police officer to death.

Joint Enterprise

R v English (1997)

"If two parties embark on a joint enterprise and one party foresees that in the course of that enterprise the other party may commit, with the requisite mens rea, and act constituting another crime, the former is liable for that crime if committed by the latter in the course of the enterprise."

Joint Enterprise

R v English (1997)

The House of Lords quashed D's conviction for murder.

He did not foresee that E would pull out a knife and - since a knife is far more dangerous than a wooden post - didn't foresee that the joint enterprise would be so risky to the police officer's life.

Joint Enterprise

Rahman and Others (2008)

Lord Bingham: If D knows that P possesses a knife (for example) then it's likely he knew that he would use it to kill.

Therefore D foresees that P will commit murder.

Therefore D is guilty of murder.

Joint Enterprise

It is possible to withdraw from a joint enterprise, but you must serve unequivocal notice to the other parties that if they continue, they do so without your assistance.

Joint Enterprise

R v Mitchell (2008)

D was involved in an aggressive attack in a taxi rank with some friends.

Her friends briefly left to collect some weapons while she lingered in the car park looking for her shoes.

When they returned they murdered the victim while D was still on the scene.

She argued that she had nothing to do with the murder because there were two separate joint enterprises.

Court of Appeal: This was one long joint enterprise and she didn't say anything to them to communicate that she was withdrawing. Guilty of murder.

Joint Enterprise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsQLnJ8r5c4