No Cover Image

EThesis 44 views 210 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
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42358
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2018-08-02T18:54:31Z
last_indexed 2018-08-03T10:09:56Z
id cronfa42358
recordtype SURis
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><firstname>Sarah</firstname><surname>Weston</surname><name>Sarah Weston</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</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&amp;apos;s proposals and the House of Lords&amp;apos; 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>EThesis</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><lastEdited>2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834</lastEdited><Created>2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834</Created><path><level id="1">College of Human and Health Sciences</level><level id="2">Public Health and Policy Studies</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Sarah</firstname><surname>Weston</surname><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><action/><embargoDate>2018-08-02T16:24:48.1670000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect></document></documents></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 v2 42358 2018-08-02 Criminal complicity: A comparative analysis of homicide liability. ab3e2af7a904c237d0e401769e9ea887 Sarah Weston Sarah Weston true false 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&apos;s proposals and the House of Lords&apos; 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. EThesis Criminology.;Law. 31 12 2002 2002-12-31 COLLEGE NANME Public Health and Policy Studies COLLEGE CODE Swansea University 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 2018-08-02T16:24:28.9633834 College of Human and Health Sciences Public Health and Policy Studies Sarah Weston 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
format EThesis
publishDate 2002
institution Swansea University
college_str College of Human and Health Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id collegeofhumanandhealthsciences
hierarchy_top_title College of Human and Health Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id collegeofhumanandhealthsciences
hierarchy_parent_title College of Human and Health Sciences
department_str Public Health and Policy Studies{{{_:::_}}}College of Human and Health Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Public Health and Policy Studies
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&apos;s proposals and the House of Lords&apos; 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 2002-12-31T20:02:13Z
_version_ 1671948280739659776
score 10.7358675