|
Re: #9: Henchmen Unite!
Surely it would be the criminal mastermind who would be the secondary party to the offence (that is, aider and abettor or conspirator or whatever) and the henchmen who would be the ones actually carrying out the heist itself?
Otherwise, 'Participation' isn't a type of inchoate offence - it is a basic requirement of criminal conduct.
It needs to be pointed out that many secondary offenders to an offence - who might be aiders and abettors, counsellors or procurers - will actually be prosecuted as if primary offenders. The doctrine of joint enterprise covers many situations where there are a number of individuals involved as a crime and allows all of them to be prosecuted for the main offence. What is required is that the defendants shared a common intention - this does not have to be a formal plan and could be an instant understanding between friends without any words exchanged - and that they all did acts that furthered that intention, in other words assisted to some extent. If that is the case then all will be guilty of the offence (unless the acts done go beyond the extent of their common intention). An easy example is that the lookout for a burglary is just as much a burglar as the one who climbs through the window.
|
Linear Mode
