Complicity in Murder and Inchoate Offences

Complicity in Murder

Involvement in a Criminal Enterprise:

When an individual participates in a criminal venture with others, and one of those individuals commits murder, the question arises about the culpability of the accomplices (D2’s). The key considerations are whether these accomplices should be held liable for the murder, and under what circumstances their liability is determined.

Principle vs. Accomplice:

• Principal: The person who directly commits the actus reus (AR) of the offence.

• Accomplice: An individual who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of the offence.

Key Cases and Developments:

• Powell v Daniels [1999] and English [1999]:

◦ Facts: These cases dealt with the extent of liability for accomplices in joint enterprise situations, where the principal offender committed a murder.

◦ Issue: Whether there is a fundamental difference in what the accomplices (D2’s) foresaw and what actually occurred, which could affect their liability.

◦ Principle: The courts considered whether the accomplices' knowledge and intention matched the gravity of the offence actually committed by the principal.

• Jogee [2016]:

◦ Facts: This landmark case redefined the principles surrounding joint enterprise.

◦ Principle: The doctrine of joint enterprise was revised. The Court held that an accessory (D2) must have intended to assist or encourage the principal offence, rather than merely foresee it as a possible consequence. The case abolished the previous requirement that the accessory need only foresee the possibility of the principal committing the offence.

◦ Impact: This change emphasised the need for a higher level of intention from the accomplice to be found guilty of the same offence as the principal.

Law Commission Proposal:

• Proposal: The Law Commission suggested that individuals engaged in a joint criminal venture should be found guilty of manslaughter if it was obvious that a murder would be committed during the venture.

• Objective: This proposal aimed to address concerns about fairness and proportionality in the liability of accomplices, ensuring that liability for murder aligns more closely with the actual level of intent and involvement.

Inchoate Offences

Definition and Scope:

• Inchoate Offences: These are offences that involve actions taken toward committing a crime, even if the crime itself has not been completed. The term "inchoate" refers to something that has begun but is not yet complete.

Types of Inchoate Offences:

1. Attempted Offences:

◦ Actus Reus (AR): For an attempt to be constituted, the defendant must have done an act that goes beyond mere preparation. The act must be more than preparatory and must demonstrate a clear step toward the commission of the offence.

◦ Mens Rea (MR): The intention to commit the full offence is required. The defendant must intend to bring about the result that constitutes the offence.

2. Case Illustration:

◦ R v Gullefer [1987]:

▪ Facts: The defendant attempted to commit theft by intervening in a horse race to get a refund on a losing bet.

▪ Held: The court considered whether his actions were merely preparatory or constituted an attempt. It was determined that the actions must be sufficiently close to the final act of the offence to constitute an attempt.

General Principles:

• Preparatory Acts: Acts that are considered preparatory are not sufficient for an attempt. There must be a clear move towards the commission of the offence.

• Intention: For an attempted offence, the mens rea involves the intent to complete the crime, not just an intention to do an act that is a step towards the crime.

In summary, the legal framework for complicity in murder has evolved to require a higher degree of intent from accomplices, as established by the Jogee case. Inchoate offences, such as attempts, focus on the defendant's actions and intentions before the crime is completed. The balance between intent and action is crucial in determining liability for both complicity and inchoate offences.