Trial·Breaker SQE1
SQE1 › FLK2 › Criminal Law and Practice › Question
SQE1 · FLK2 · Criminal Law and Practice

Actus reus, mens rea and participation — SQE1 Criminal question

A worked single-best-answer question on actus reus, mens rea and participation, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.

Actus reus, mens rea and participation

Pete and Quinn agreed to burgle a house at night while the owner was away. Pete knew Quinn was carrying a knife and thought there was a real possibility that Quinn might use it to cause serious harm if disturbed. The owner returned unexpectedly and Quinn stabbed him to death. Quinn is convicted of murder. Pete is charged with murder as an accessory.

Which of the following best describes the test for Pete's liability for murder?

  1. APete is guilty of murder if he foresaw that Quinn might use the knife with intent to kill or cause serious harm.
  2. BPete cannot be guilty of any homicide offence, because he did not stab the owner.
  3. CPete is guilty of murder only if the jury is sure he intended to assist or encourage Quinn to act with intent to kill or cause serious harm; his foresight is evidence of that intention but not enough on its own.
  4. DPete is guilty of murder only if he and Quinn expressly agreed beforehand that the knife would be used.
  5. EPete is guilty of murder, because a participant in a joint enterprise is liable for every crime committed in the course of it.
Show answer and reasoning
C is the best answer. An accessory is guilty only if he intended to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime, with any intent the crime requires; intention may be conditional (R v Jogee). Foresight that the principal might act as he did is evidence from which the jury may infer intention but is not itself sufficient. If Pete lacked that intention, he may still be guilty of manslaughter if a reasonable person would have recognised the risk of some harm.

Rule: An accessory is liable only if he intentionally assisted or encouraged the principal's crime, intending it to be committed with the necessary mens rea; foresight is evidence of intent, not a substitute for it.

  • A The foresight test in Chan Wing-Siu was held in Jogee to be a wrong turn; foresight is only evidence of intention. (wrong rule)
  • B An accessory may be liable for murder, or for manslaughter, without being the person who strikes the fatal blow. (wrong rule)
  • D Intention to assist or encourage can be inferred, and may be conditional; express agreement about the knife is not required. (wrong rule)
  • E There is no rule that a participant is automatically liable for every crime committed during the joint venture. (wrong rule)

Source: R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8

Practise more Criminal Law and Practice   All Criminal subtopics