Chapter 9:
Parties to an Offence
Common law parties to a crime:
Principal- committed the offence
Aider- enabled someone else to commit the criminal act
Abettor-encouraged another person to commit a crime
Counsellor- did something to incite another to commit a crime
S.21 if Crim Code defines the parties to an offence
-know difference between terms b/c they will be important on sentencing and culpability
-one person may be liable for committing a crime but someone who assists the principal may be equally
culpable for the same offence
Aiding and Abetting
- Aiding is helping WITHOUT encouragement or instigation (defined in R v. Greyeyes)
- Abetting means promoting or instigating a crime to be commited
- They do not need to know details of the crime just the type of crime that was aided
- Important distinction between aiding and abetting b/c some crimes to which a particular
defence might not be available
- Examples: someone who encourages or supplies a weapon, acts as a lookout, or drives the
getaway car
- Assistance must have been rendered before or during the course of the offence
- Help after makes one an accessory after the fact
Example of Aiding and Abetting:
R v. Kulbacki [1965]: Kulbacki let a girl drive his car at over 90 miles per hour on a rough municipal
highway. Assisted in the commission of the offence b/c he did nothing to stop the dangerous driving
even though he had authority over the car and driver
R v. Laurencelle [1999]: Mr. McCarron was kidnapped and taken to a nearby house (Ms. Laurencelles).
She did not kidnap him, but brought him water and did nice things for him while he was captured. Was
not charged with aiding and abetting to the offence of confinement because she did not have a duty to
make the kidnappers leave (she was afraid) or do anything bad.
Counselling
- Found in s. 22 of the Crim Code
- One must intentionally solicit another person to commit a criminal offence or help another party
commit an offence
- Counsellor found liable for every offence that the counselled person commits if they knew that
offences could result from their counselling
- Involves less participation than aiding and abetting - Actus reus: established where the material or statements made or transmitted by the accused
actively induce or advocate-and do not merely describe- the commission of an offence
- Mens rea: intended that the offence counselled be committed, or knowingly counselled the
commission of the offence while aware of the unjustified risk that the offence counselled was in
fact likely to be commited as a result of the accused’s conduct
- S. 464 of Crim Code: even if no crime is committed the counsellor is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to the same punishment as one who attempts a crime. If a summary offence
is committed, the counsellor is liable to the same punishment for conviction of that sum ary
offence
Accessories After the Fact
- s.23 of Crim Code
- must have knowledge or wilful blindness that the party he is helping has committed a criminal
offence and be aware of the circumstance of the person who had offended
- key element: helping accused to escape
- historically husband and wife could NOT be an accessory b/c they were seen as “one person in
law, and are presumed to have but one will”
- this ^ was repealed in 2000
Inchoate Offences-Attempts
- those offences in which the crime is incomplete
- serve a preventative measure to stop a crime from occurring
- punishing an individual before the harmful conduct
- S. 24 of Crim Code
- Attempts are for those acts that go beyond mere preparation..to determine this one must
consider temporal distance, geographical distance, and the remaining acts to be completed
- Actus reus of an attempt is difficult to prove
- Mens rea: complete
- No universal test to determine what counts as preparation so it is determined on a case by case
bases
Example:
R v. Deutsch [1986]: Deutsch (boss) told female job applicants during interview that they may have to
have sex with clients to seal the deal in certain contracts HOWEVER he did NOT offer them jobs. Court
had to satisfy if the actus reus of attempting to procure women was beyond mere preparation. Guilty
b/c Deutsch telling candidates they would have sex with clients was an “important step” in the
commission of the offence..so guilty of an attempt.
Attempts-Mens Rea
- primary importance in attempts..s 24 of Crim Code says there is a need for “intent to commit an
offence”
- attempt requires a degree of mens rea that is greater than would be required for the completed
offence
- Example: R v. Ancio: SCC, for attempted murder nothing less than actual intent to kill will
suffice..this is a higher standard of culpability for attempted murder than required to actually
commit murder (WTF) - -bar is set high to prevent wrongful convictions
Example:
R v. Sorrell & Bondett [1978]: Sorrell and Bondett were accused of a fried chicken store. Went up to
store, was told it was closed, and walked away..Manager called police and they were arrested down the
street, one had a gun. Courts found that although they committed elements of the actus reus there was
no evidence of intent. The men were acquitted because of lack of mens rea
Attempting the Impossible
- s 24 of Crim Code states if you intend to commit a crime, it is not important whether you could
actually successfully complete that crime
- example of this: R v. Scott Scott convicted for attempting to pick pocket but there . It was clear
Scott attempted to steal even though there was no money in the wallet. Therefore he
attempted to commit an impossible crime which is still a crime
- “imaginary crimes” if accused attempts to do something that he believes is a crime but no crime
More
Less
