Complicity

Question 1

What are the types of Complicity

Answer 1

Innocent agency
Common Design
Accessorial Liability

Question 2

What is the doctrine of innocent agency

Answer 2

If X employs an innoocent agent to commit a crime.
X will be liable for the offence rather than the innocent person

Question 3

What are the 2 main cases for innocent agency

Answer 3

R v Manley

R v Butt

Question 4

R v Manley

Answer 4

Defined innocent agent as someone who is legally incapable of committing the offence,ie. an animal/child

Question 5

R v Butt

Answer 5

Facts: The accused deliberately gave false information to the bookkeeper of his employer’s company so it could be entered into the company accounts.

Held: The bookeeper was the innocent agent.
The defendant was convicted on the charge of falsifying the accounts

Question 6

Mens rea and innocent agency

Answer 6

If the agent who commits the crime is not mentally innocent, ie they have the mens rea for the offence, then they will be the principle offender and the person who asked the agent to do it could be liable for accessory

Question 7

What is another word for common design

Answer 7

Joint enterprise

Question 8

NAme the case where the doctrine was defined

Answer 8

R v Anderson

Question 9

R v Anderson

Answer 9

Where 2 ppl embark on a joint enterprise, botjh are liable for the acts done to pursue it as well as any unusual consequances

BUT if one of them go off to do somehthing beyond what was agreed by the 2, then only the perpetrator would be liable for that thing

Question 10

What case looked at the mens rea required of an accused in joint enterprise

Answer 10

Chan win Siu v R

Question 11

Chan Win Siu vR

Answer 11

Appelant and co accused charged with murder
Said they went to victim house to collect a debt but they were attacked by him. 2 of the three had knives and knew that the others had knives

Held: All were taking part in joint and unlawful enterprise
They all had sufficient intent and foresaw the possibility of death/serious injury

Question 12

Name other cases of common design

Answer 12

DPP v Murray
AG v Ryan
DPP v Eccles
DPP v Cumberton
DPP v Doohan
DPP v Dekker

English approach- R v Jogee

Question 13

DPP v Murray

Answer 13

Facts: During a bank robbery, when the couple were escaping they began to be pursued by an off duty gardai.
One of the people shot the gardai

Can the other individual be found guilty of common design in relation to the recklessness of shooting the gardai.

Held: Majrity said no because it cant be inferred from the evidence that they had both planned to shoot at the gardai if caught.

Minority: By agreeing to commit an armed robbery, the Murrays also agreed to use force to steal and resist arrest.

Shooting someone to help escape was within the scope of the common design.

Liability under common design depends on whether the particular act can be shown to have been part of the agreed plan (expressly or by necessary implication).

Question 14

AG v Ryan

Answer 14

Facts: Concerned a member of a gang who was involved in a fight, leaving a dance. The gang leader, who claimed that he was hit by one of the rivals earlier, struck one of them with a motor car jack and killed him.
The gang member was convicted of manslaughter.

Held: Within the common design as having regard to the circumstances, it wouldve been clearly within Ryans contemplation that someone would use a weapon on the rival gang

Question 15

DPP v Eccles

Answer 15

Facts: Applicants convicted of capital murder
Taken part in robbery where Gardai was killed

Argument: They had not known that the victim was a garda when he was shot, and therefore shouldn’t be convicted of capital murder based on the fact that they were part of a common design which included risk of causing death or serious injurty to gardai

Held: CoA Not satisfied that the shooting of gardai went beyond what had been agreed as part of the common enterprise.
The shooting of the gardai was part of the common design because they knew that if faced with resistance by gardai then there would be use of firearms

Question 16

DPP v Cumberton

Answer 16

Facts: Charged with wounding and assault resulting in actual body harm
he had arranged for the victim of the shooting to be in a certain place at a certain time.
He did this at ther request of another man

Argument: He justy thought the victim would get a good beating and not that he would get shot at

Held: Liability in common design depends on what was actually agreed between the parties — if someone goes beyond that, the others aren’t responsible. The jury must decide this, not the judge.

Must ask the jurty whether or not the use of the shotgun went beyond what was contemplated and if yes, accquital

In this case the jury were misdirected

Question 17

DPP v Doohan

Answer 17

Facts: Accused convicted of murder even tho he told his accomplice to only breack a few arms and legs of the in dividual

Held: Unlike in Cumberton, the plan here clearly contemplated serious, horrific injuries, making the resulting death within the scope of the common design.

Principle: If the common design contemplates violence of a very serious nature, participants can be held liable for murder even if death was not explicitly intended.

Question 18

DPP v Dekker

Answer 18

Facts

Case involved a murder by joint enterprise.

Issue: Could an accessory be guilty of murder if they foresaw serious injury but not necessarily death?

Holding (Dunne J.)

In joint enterprise, it matters what the participants agreed to do (tacitly or expressly).

Foresight of serious injury is crucial.

If someone joins an assault knowing it is intended to cause serious injury, and death results, the accessory is guilty of murder, even if they didn’t realise the principal acted with intent to kill.

The forseeability of serious injury is enough

Question 19

English approach: R v Jogee

Answer 19

Facts

Jogee and Hirsi were aggressive after drugs/alcohol.
Hirsi stabbed and killed Paul Fyfe during a confrontation at Naomi Reid’s house.
Jogee encouraged Hirsi while outside.

Two questions for joint enterprise liability:

1. Did the defendant assist or encourage the crime?
2. Did the defendant act with the requisite mens rea for that offence?

Example: Encouraging a minor act does not automatically make the defendant guilty of a more serious offence the principal commits.

The court rejected the old foreseeability test. Liability now depends on whether the accessory shares the same mens rea as the principal, not merely foresaw the crime.

Question 20

What legislation talks about accessorial liability

Answer 20

Section 7(1) of the criminal law act 1997

Question 21

Section 7(1) of the criminal law act 1997

Answer 21

Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as the principal offender

Question 22

What does aid and abet mean

Answer 22

To asssist

Question 23

What do counsel and procure mean

Answer 23

To encourage

Question 24

What are the 3 types of accessory

Answer 24

Accessory before the fact

Accessory at the fact

Accessory after the fact

Question 25

What does accessory before the fact mean

Answer 25

If a person assists in or encourages the commission of an offence before it is committed Planning the crime/hiring someone to carry out criminal enterprise

Question 26

What does accessory at the facct mean

Answer 26

If a person assists in or encourages the commission of an offence at the scene of a crime,

Question 27

Examples of when the accused aided/abetted/counselled/procured

Answer 27

R v Coney R v Clarckson DPP v Rose DPP v Jordan AG v Ryan

Question 28

R v Coney

Answer 28

Simply being present at a crime does not make someone guilty. To be liable as an accessory, a person must actively participate or act in concert with the perpetrators. Presence can be evidence of involvement, but it is not enough on its own.

Question 29

R v Clarkson

Answer 29

Facts: Evidence of being present at a rape, but there was no evidence of physical participation or verbal erncourahement GHeld: No inference can be drawn of intention to encourage therefore aqcuitted

Question 30

DPP v Rose

Answer 30

Facts: Defendant said mind the blood lads Held: Too ambiguous to prove intent to murder It could reasonably be interpreted as the applicant expressing concern and trying to prevent further harm, rather than encouraging the killing.

Question 31

DPP v Jordan

Answer 31

FActs: Conerned an illegal dog fight Held: Encouragement doesn't have to be expressed, but there may just be some actual evidence of it, like gambling or fleeing arrest

Question 32

AG v Ryan

Answer 32

Different view If someone is knowingly present to support others committing a crime, even without directly acting, their presence can make them criminally liable as part of the group.

Question 33

Cases where the accused knew that the perpetrator intended to commit a crime

Answer 33

DPP v Egan DPP v MAdden DPP NI v MAxwell AG v Ryan

Question 34

DPP v Egan

Answer 34

Facts The applicant, a window supplier, let a van be sheltered in his workshop for what he was told was a “small stroke.” He later realized it was an armed robbery when he saw people with revolvers. He claimed he would not have participated if he had known it was armed. Holding (Costello J.) The prosecution did not need to prove that the applicant knew the precise details of the robbery (how, where, or when). It was enough that he knew a theft-related offence was intended. Therefore, his conviction for robbery was upheld. Principle Aiding and abetting liability: It suffices that the accused knew the nature of the crime (e.g., theft), even if not aware of all specifics.

Question 35

DPP v MAdden

Answer 35

Holding (O’Higgins C.J.) To establish aiding/abetting, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted knowingly to assist the intended unlawful act. Liability arises from acts that help the principal, combined with knowledge of the principal’s intended crime. The acts can also support crimes of a similar nature if the accused knew such outcomes were intended. Principle Aiding and abetting requires: Participation that assists the principal. Knowledge of the principal’s intended crime (or similar crime).

Question 36

DPP DPP NI v Maxwell

Answer 36

Maxwell drove a group of Ulster Volunteer Force members to a pub. One member threw a bomb, which was defused. Maxwell was convicted of possessing a bomb and an attempt to cause an explosion. He claimed he did not know their intention. Holding House of Lords: It is enough that the crime committed was one that the accused could have reasonably contemplated. Maxwell’s knowledge did not have to include precise details; foresight of the type of offence sufficed. Principle Aiding/abetting liability: The accused can be guilty if the principal’s offence was within the scope of what the accused contemplated when assisting.

Question 37

AG v Ryan

Answer 37

Henchy J. instructed the jury that for manslaughter, the State must prove the accused knew that Coffey intended to cause less than serious injury. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld this instruction. The case involved both common design and aiding/abetting, but the court did not clearly distinguish between them as alternative ways to impose liability. Commentary / Principle Accessorial liability in Irish law is uncertain and lacks statutory or authoritative clarification. Ní Raifeartaigh criticizes this ambiguity, noting that it leads to inconsistent jury instructions and uncertainty about when someone qualifies as an accessory to murder. In short: Ryan highlights the confusion in Irish law over accessorial liability, showing overlap between common design and aiding/abetting and the need for clearer rules.

Question 38

What is abandonment

Answer 38

When a party withdraws from participation in the crime

Question 39

State key cases on abandonment

Answer 39

R v Whitehouse AG v Ryan R v Jensen and ward

Question 40

R v Whitehouse

Answer 40

To withdraw from a joint criminal plan, more is needed than just changing your mind or leaving physically. There must be timely and clear communication to the remaining participants that you are no longer assisting. Once communicated, any further acts by those continuing the crime are their own responsibility, and those who withdrew are no longer liable.

Question 41

AG v Ryan

Answer 41

Facts: Accused told 2 of the girls in the group that there would be no fighting Held: Not suffficient wnouygh, he would have to address the principal aggressor He also didn't disarm until after the striking and remained close to the perpetrator

Question 42

R v Jensen and Ward

Answer 42

Simply having second thoughts, regrets, or wishing to stop is not enough to withdraw from a joint criminal plan. To effectively call off participation, a person must either: Communicate their withdrawal to co-conspirators, or Take a positive step, like informing the police.

Question 43

What relevamnt legislation talks about accessory after the fact

Answer 43

Section 7(2) Criminal Law Act

Question 44

Section 7(2) of the criminal law act

Answer 44

Helping or shielding a criminal after the crime, without a reasonable excuse, is itself a crime.

Question 45

What ius arrestable offencee

Answer 45

one that attracts minimum 5 years imprisonment

Question 46

What is an accessory after fact

Answer 46

An accessory after the fact does not need to know the exact crime—it’s enough to know that some arrestable offence occurred. The concept of a “reasonable excuse” is unclear, but it likely does not extend beyond close relationships, like spouses. The accessory does not have to succeed in obstructing the law; attempting to impede the perpetrator is enough for liability.

Question 47

Other relevant pieces of leg

Answer 47

S 7(3) S 7(4)

Question 48

S7(3)

Answer 48

permits an accused to be convicted as an accessory after the fact if it cannot be proved that he actually perpetrated the crime.

Question 49

S7(4) Punishment

Answer 49

f the perpetrator faces life imprisonment, the accessory may get up to 10 years. If the perpetrator faces 14 years, the accessory may get up to 7 years. If the perpetrator faces 10 years, the accessory may get up to 5 years. For all other offences, the accessory may get up to 3 years.

Question 50

Concealing an arrestable offence for profit relevamt leg

Answer 50

Section 8(1) of the 1997 Act

Question 51

Section 8(1) of the 1997 Act

Answer 51

If someone knows about a crime and accepts payment or benefit to hide that information, it is a crime. The person does not need to know the exact offence. It is not illegal to accept reasonable compensation for losses caused by the crime—only profit from hiding it is illegal. Maximum penalty: 3 years’ imprisonment.