• Explain The Difference Between Art And Criminal Liability

Consider and explain how criminal liability might be established on an art and part basis. In addition, consider how an individual may be held liable for the unintended consequences of a course of criminal conduct, and how such an individual might defend any such allegations.

Art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability meaning: "where two or more people engage together in committing a crime, each actor is equally guilty of the whole crime irrespective of the particular role played by each individual".1 A typical example of art and part liability is a bank robbery. For example, a gang perform the physical act of the crime: the actus reus; the robbing of the bank, with one man sitting in the getaway car. All men are guilty of the crime. If one member inside

This can be seen in the doctrine of art and part liability. An individual may become art and part guilty of a crime as a result of personal conduct, however, his criminal liability is dependant upon the actions of another person. The justification of this derivative liability is that the person involved art and part tends to assist or participate in the commission of the crime.2 However, one must be all complicit in the acts, 'guilt by association' is insufficient, and to establish art and part guilt, the basic requirement is that the persons must be acting towards some form of 'common purpose' which can be shown through either: actual knowledge or anticipation, or voluntary or intentional assistance in the commission of the crime. Common purpose may be premeditated or spontaneous: it may be evidenced by an agreement or by people appearing to act according to a common plan. If a common purpose or plan cannot be established then the principle of art and part guilt falls. Common purpose can be established in the following