LLB180 Lecture 4: Week 4 – Complicity I – Joint Criminal Enterprise
Week 4 – Complicity I – Joint Criminal Enterprise
Complicity
Conviction of people involved in the commission of a completed offence
Extends criminal liability to people other than the primary actor in three circumstances:
1. Where 2+ people agree to commit a crime and one/all of the participants carry out
the necessary conduct elements, all will be held liable for the crime according to the
rules relating to joint criminal enterprise
2. Where, during the course of a joint criminal enterprise, one or more members
oit a additioal rie that as’t the origial agreeet, the other eers
can also be liable for that crime – extended joint criminal enterprise
3. A perso ho, outside the agreeet, aids, aets, ousels or proures the
commission of a crime by another person is also liable for the crime – accessorial
liability
NSWLRC Complicity Report (CB 1137):
• Problems:
- Where each is present at the scene but it is unknown who committed the actus
reus
- Only some members were present at the time the actus reus took place
- The concert between the participants evolves beyond the particular crime which
was planned to another crime
• Depending on the facts of the case the liability of the second participant may be:
- Derivative – dependent on the primary participant committing the offence
(accessory before or after the fact)
- Primary – a party to a joint enterprise to commit a particular crime
Clayton v The Queen
Three friends were outraged with a neighbour, they armed themselves with household
weapons, a pole and a large carving knife and invaded the neighbours home. The neighbour
was detained, beaten and stabbed and died. The prosecution argued that although they
ould’t idetif ho iflited the sta oud, eah partiipat as guilt of murder
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Joint criminal enterprise
Osland (1998) 159 ALR 170
Heather Oslad ad her so reahed a agreeet to urder Heather’s husad. Heather
ied a sedatie ito her husad’s dier ad after he had falle asleep, the so ashed
him to death. Heather was convicted of murder, but her son was acquitted. Heather argues
in this appeal that her conviction is inconsistent with his acquittal, and she should be
acquitted as well
• A person is a part of a joint criminal enterprise when the person did not commit the
actus reus yet:
1. Agreed with the others that they as a group will do the crime
2. Was present at the time of the crime
• The actus reus committed by one or more of the parties will be attributed to to the
persons deemed a part of the joint-criminal enterprise. Each person is then
independently of the mens rea findings of the other persons
• Accordingly, the acquittal of her son has no relevance on Heather Osland. It was his
actus reus, and not his conviction as a whole, which was applied to her because of
her part in the joint enterprise. Thus, she had the relevant actus reus, and also the
mens rea (since she agreed to the crime). She is convicted irrespective of his trial
outcome
Huynh, Duong and Sem [2013] HCA 6
Huynh, Duong and Sem were convicted of murder at a joint trial in the Supreme Court of
South Australia. Each to serve life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years.
Appeals against their conviction were dismissed by the High Court
• The death was caused by a stab wound inflicted from an assault
• The proseutio ase did’t deped o oitio of the priipal offeder
• The victim was at a party where the three defendants were. Huynh and Duong had
left the party and went to Duongs house. Sem remained
• There was conflict with the victim and Sem, so Sem left and went to Duongs house
where he recounted the events. Two witnesses at Duongs house heard them say
lets go get the ad get a kife
• When the three defendants arrived back they were armed. The other party guests
locked themselves in the garage however the defendant and a girl were on the
driveway where the assault started.
• Doctrines of joint criminal enterprise/extended joint criminal enterprise was used
• High Court: liailit attahes to all the parties to the agreement who participate in
soe a i furtherig its eeutio
Sever [2010] NSWCCA 135: The Court of Criminal Appeal said that where the co-accused
is’t preset at the see at the tie the joit riial eterprise oits the at, the
prosecution will need to provide:
eidee of the eleets other tha those pertaiig to the offee itself, proof eod
reasoale dout of the eistee of the agreeet, the aused’s partiipatio i it… these
elements cannot be inferred from the circumstances in which the offence is committed
because there is no evidence of what the accused said/did during the commission of the
offee
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Week 4 complicity i joint criminal enterprise. Conviction of people involved in the commission of a completed offence. Where each is present at the scene but it is unknown who committed the actus reus. Only some members were present at the time the actus reus took place. The concert between the participants evolves beyond the particular crime which was planned to another crime: depending on the facts of the case the liability of the second participant may be: Derivative dependent on the primary participant committing the offence (accessory before or after the fact) Primary a party to a joint enterprise to commit a particular crime. Three friends were outraged with a neighbour, they armed themselves with household weapons, a pole and a large carving knife and invaded the neighbours home. The neighbour was detained, beaten and stabbed and died. The prosecution argued that although they (cid:272)ould(cid:374)"t ide(cid:374)tif(cid:455) (cid:449)ho i(cid:374)fli(cid:272)ted the sta(cid:271) (cid:449)ou(cid:374)d, ea(cid:272)h parti(cid:272)ipa(cid:374)t (cid:449)as guilt(cid:455) of murder.
