* not completed

. Which of the following is FALSE?

An accessory is charged as the principal. correct incorrect

An accessory is tried as the principal. correct incorrect

An accessory is sentenced as the principal. correct incorrect

An accessory is the person who committed the principal crime. correct incorrect

* not completed

. According to the Court of Appeal in Bryce (2004) what is the preferred way to express the particulars of the charge against an accessory?

… that A aided and abetted the principal. correct incorrect

… that A counselled and procured the principal. correct incorrect

It depends on what type of assistance the prosecution is able to prove; so either aid or abet or counsel or procure. correct incorrect

… that A aided, abetted, counselled, or procured the principal. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Aiding and abetting require what sort of conduct?

Helping P to commit the crime. correct incorrect

Conduct which causes P to commit the offence. correct incorrect

Conduct where A solicits the offence. correct incorrect

Presence at the scene of the principal offence. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following is NOT an element of the mens rea for accessorial liability?

A intentionally assists P. correct incorrect

A knows his assistance is for P to commit a crime (the principal offence). correct incorrect

A knows that P might commit the crime (that is, A foresees the possibility the principal offence). correct incorrect

A intends for P to commit an agreed offence in an agreed way. correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Thornton v Mitchell (1940) why was the accessory not guilty of aiding and abetting?

Because P has a defence. correct incorrect

Because P had not committed the offence. correct incorrect

Because P was liable for another offence. correct incorrect

Because P was simply an innocent agent. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which is the BEST description of the House of Lords' decision in Powell (1999)?

A may be convicted of murder where A contemplates that P might kill with intent to kill or cause GBH. correct incorrect

It is contrary to legal principle that an accessory to murder can be convicted on the basis of his foresight alone. correct incorrect

A may be convicted of murder only where A intends for death to be caused. correct incorrect

A may be convicted of murder only where A intends for P to cause death. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which is the BEST description of the House of Lords' decision in Jogee (2017)?

If P committed an act which was fundamentally different from that which they jointly contemplated, A could not be guilty of murder. correct incorrect

A can be guilty of murder if they intentionally assisted A in the crime of Murder. correct incorrect

P may be guilty of murder and A of manslaughter on the basis of what they each foresaw. correct incorrect

A did not know that P had a knife. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following is FALSE?

If P and A agree to murder V, P kills V, then even if P's act which causes V's death is different from that foreseen by A, or P uses a different weapon, A and P is each guilty of murder. correct incorrect

If P and A agree to murder V, P kills V, then provided A intended to assist or encourage P, even if P was going to intentionally kill , A and P is each guilty of murder. correct incorrect

If P and A agree to cause V serious harm, and A foresees as a real possibility that P might kill V, if P kills V, then P and A is each guilty of murder correct incorrect

If P and A agree to cause V serious harm and P kills then if the jury finds that A would not have intended to assist a murder then A is not guilty of murder. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following is TRUE?

In Becerra (1975), running off and shouting "let's go" were sufficient to constitute a withdrawal from the joint venture. correct incorrect

In Rook (1993) not turning up as planned was a sufficient withdrawal. correct incorrect

Withdrawal from a spontaneous joint venture is no different from withdrawal from a planned joint venture. correct incorrect

In Becerra (1975), running off and shouting "let's go" were not insufficient to constitute a withdrawal from the joint venture. correct incorrect