No Cover Image

E-Thesis 514 views 1244 downloads

Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability. / Sarah Weston

Swansea University Author: Sarah Weston

Abstract

The work considers the construction of homicide liability where two or more parties participate in a crime that culminates in a homicide collateral to the original criminal purpose. Under English law, this scenario is encountered in joint enterprise cases and, in 1997, the House of Lords gave a judg...

Full description

Published: 2002
Institution: Swansea University
Degree level: Doctoral
Degree name: Ph.D
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42358
first_indexed 2018-08-02T18:54:31Z
last_indexed 2018-08-03T10:09:56Z
id cronfa42358
recordtype RisThesis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>42358</id><entry>2018-08-02</entry><title>Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>ab3e2af7a904c237d0e401769e9ea887</sid><ORCID>NULL</ORCID><firstname>Sarah</firstname><surname>Weston</surname><name>Sarah Weston</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>true</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2018-08-02</date><abstract>The work considers the construction of homicide liability where two or more parties participate in a crime that culminates in a homicide collateral to the original criminal purpose. Under English law, this scenario is encountered in joint enterprise cases and, in 1997, the House of Lords gave a judgement intended to clarify the liability of participating non-perpetrators of homicides committed during the execution of joint criminal enterprises. In 1993, the Law Commission recommended amending the doctrinal basis of complicity. Omitting joint enterprise from the new framework, it was suggested that it be recognised as a separate doctrine. In order to assess the Law Commission's proposals and the House of Lords' judgement, the historical progress and socio-political context of complicity and homicide are examined prior to analysing the alternative doctrinal foundations for secondary liability, including the relationship between complicity, incitement and conspiracy. In concluding that an amendment to the doctrinal basis of complicity fails to deliver convincingly comprehensive solutions to the existing problems and that joint enterprise cannot stand alone as a meaningfully discrete head of liability, attention is focussed upon the impact of the substantive law of murder and involuntary manslaughter upon secondary liability. It is submitted that the unpalatable theoretical solutions to secondary party homicide liability gain potency from the development of substantive homicide and from the uneven results achieved when applying the substantive law to accessories. The principal comparative model is South African law. Having chosen to adopt common purpose liability from English law and develop the resulting liability alongside Roman-Dutch principles. South Africa provides both similarities and differences with English developments. Furthermore, consideration of the cases that pervaded the apartheid era provide a further insight into the socio-political context of this area of the law. Both the English and South African material include cases up to and including 30 June 2002.</abstract><type>E-Thesis</type><journal/><journalNumber></journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Criminology.;Law.</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2002</publishedYear><publishedDate>2002-12-31</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Public Health and Policy Studies</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><degreelevel>Doctoral</degreelevel><degreename>Ph.D</degreename><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834</lastEdited><Created>2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Health and Social Care - Public Health</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Sarah</firstname><surname>Weston</surname><orcid>NULL</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0042358-02082018162448.pdf</filename><originalFilename>10798066.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2018-08-02T16:24:48.1670000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>17894400</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>E-Thesis</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2018-08-02T16:24:48.1670000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 v2 42358 2018-08-02 Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability. ab3e2af7a904c237d0e401769e9ea887 NULL Sarah Weston Sarah Weston true true 2018-08-02 The work considers the construction of homicide liability where two or more parties participate in a crime that culminates in a homicide collateral to the original criminal purpose. Under English law, this scenario is encountered in joint enterprise cases and, in 1997, the House of Lords gave a judgement intended to clarify the liability of participating non-perpetrators of homicides committed during the execution of joint criminal enterprises. In 1993, the Law Commission recommended amending the doctrinal basis of complicity. Omitting joint enterprise from the new framework, it was suggested that it be recognised as a separate doctrine. In order to assess the Law Commission's proposals and the House of Lords' judgement, the historical progress and socio-political context of complicity and homicide are examined prior to analysing the alternative doctrinal foundations for secondary liability, including the relationship between complicity, incitement and conspiracy. In concluding that an amendment to the doctrinal basis of complicity fails to deliver convincingly comprehensive solutions to the existing problems and that joint enterprise cannot stand alone as a meaningfully discrete head of liability, attention is focussed upon the impact of the substantive law of murder and involuntary manslaughter upon secondary liability. It is submitted that the unpalatable theoretical solutions to secondary party homicide liability gain potency from the development of substantive homicide and from the uneven results achieved when applying the substantive law to accessories. The principal comparative model is South African law. Having chosen to adopt common purpose liability from English law and develop the resulting liability alongside Roman-Dutch principles. South Africa provides both similarities and differences with English developments. Furthermore, consideration of the cases that pervaded the apartheid era provide a further insight into the socio-political context of this area of the law. Both the English and South African material include cases up to and including 30 June 2002. E-Thesis Criminology.;Law. 31 12 2002 2002-12-31 COLLEGE NANME Public Health and Policy Studies COLLEGE CODE Swansea University Doctoral Ph.D 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Health and Social Care - Public Health Sarah Weston NULL 1 0042358-02082018162448.pdf 10798066.pdf 2018-08-02T16:24:48.1670000 Output 17894400 application/pdf E-Thesis true 2018-08-02T16:24:48.1670000 false
title Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
spellingShingle Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
Sarah Weston
title_short Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
title_full Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
title_fullStr Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
title_full_unstemmed Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
title_sort Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability.
author_id_str_mv ab3e2af7a904c237d0e401769e9ea887
author_id_fullname_str_mv ab3e2af7a904c237d0e401769e9ea887_***_Sarah Weston
author Sarah Weston
author2 Sarah Weston
format E-Thesis
publishDate 2002
institution Swansea University
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str School of Health and Social Care - Public Health{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Health and Social Care - Public Health
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description The work considers the construction of homicide liability where two or more parties participate in a crime that culminates in a homicide collateral to the original criminal purpose. Under English law, this scenario is encountered in joint enterprise cases and, in 1997, the House of Lords gave a judgement intended to clarify the liability of participating non-perpetrators of homicides committed during the execution of joint criminal enterprises. In 1993, the Law Commission recommended amending the doctrinal basis of complicity. Omitting joint enterprise from the new framework, it was suggested that it be recognised as a separate doctrine. In order to assess the Law Commission's proposals and the House of Lords' judgement, the historical progress and socio-political context of complicity and homicide are examined prior to analysing the alternative doctrinal foundations for secondary liability, including the relationship between complicity, incitement and conspiracy. In concluding that an amendment to the doctrinal basis of complicity fails to deliver convincingly comprehensive solutions to the existing problems and that joint enterprise cannot stand alone as a meaningfully discrete head of liability, attention is focussed upon the impact of the substantive law of murder and involuntary manslaughter upon secondary liability. It is submitted that the unpalatable theoretical solutions to secondary party homicide liability gain potency from the development of substantive homicide and from the uneven results achieved when applying the substantive law to accessories. The principal comparative model is South African law. Having chosen to adopt common purpose liability from English law and develop the resulting liability alongside Roman-Dutch principles. South Africa provides both similarities and differences with English developments. Furthermore, consideration of the cases that pervaded the apartheid era provide a further insight into the socio-political context of this area of the law. Both the English and South African material include cases up to and including 30 June 2002.
published_date 2002-12-31T04:38:05Z
_version_ 1822103683931832320
score 11.048302

Similar Items