Rabea Ashraf

to Crime

Supervision 4: Parties

Criminal law supervision 4: parties to crime

1. Roderick
- Roderick obviously had the intention, the mens rea to commit the offence of
breaking into the warehouse because he took a meat clever with him to the
warehouse
- When Trevor tells Roderick to hand the meat cleaver over, he does not proving
some intent.

Under the capacity/choice theory which states that; One has to have the

capacity to understand what they are doing and have to be in control of

their actions. Everybody has the capacity to choose between right and
wrong. In order to be liable under criminal law, you have to be aware of
the nature of your actions, know the relevant circumstances and be
aware of the possible circumstances.
From the information we have been given, it can be assumed that
Roderick had the capacity to understand his actions, make the choice
about injuring the guard and understand the consequences of these
actions.
-

Roderick can be seen to have indirect/oblique intention as it is not necessary

that the cleaver was to be used as a weapon?
Roderick could have just been reckless about the issue, subjective or objective?
Stanley
Stanley had a suspicion about Rodericks intention behind the trip to the
warehouse. Despite this suspicion he still said that he was happy to drive
Roderick to the warehouse.
This could show that he had the intention and was not going to prevent the
crime.
The stomach pains that Stanley contracted when they arrived at the
warehouse obstructed the plan to include Stanley in the crime; this therefore
meant he was not part of the crime.
He did however carry the intention to drive Roderick to the warehouse and
therefore help in part of the crime; this could be seen as direct intention as this
was forming the plan from the beginning.
On the other hand, the plan did not include harming another individual, just to
take the meat.
Nearness to completion?
Communication of withdrawal he did not necessarily say he was not going
take part, it must be communicated that you are no longer willing to take part.
As to be liable as an accessory you dont have to be present at the crime. Eg
Rook Becreera
Trevor

Rabea Ashraf
to Crime

Supervision 4: Parties

Trevor was deceived by Roderick as to the actual plans, and although Trevor
thought this was unusual, he did not question it.
Was the act within the contemplation of what might happen?
Rv powell r v English Anderson v maris
Roderick: principle offender liable for GBH
Stanley: accessory for causing GBH
Trevor: accessory to burglary/theft

2. It could be seen that the shopkeeper is just carrying out his job. They
are unaware of what the weapon maybe used to do. If this is made too
broad, then a lot of people and other shopkeepers, those not
necessarily selling weapons would become liable. Other items can be
made into weapons and those individuals who commit crimes are not
necessarily out looking for weapons as knives. The shopkeeper selling
knives does not have the intention to kill or cause harm, the person
who buys it with the intention to cause harm is liable.
3. Law commission on participation in crime.
Clause 1.
Intention to assist
Intentionally encouraging/assisting
Intends participant to commit the act
Criminal act: general rule it means conduct element of the principle offence
Intention: entitles to find intention, find intention.
The bill shows positive advancements by the law as lays down some rules to show
how different participators in crimes are considered liable by the law. It looks at
intention and future crimes to decide this. Also looks at innocent agents.