Doctrine common design v accessorial liability

Dylan123

Prob a very basic question.....

However i can not see the real difference between these two legal principles:

- doctrine of common design
- liability as an accessory

Thanks in advance

Dylan123

Dylan123 wrote: »

Prob a very basic question.....

However i can not see the real difference between between these two legal principles:

- doctrine of common design
- liability as an accessory

Thanks in advance

I remember mooting on this before. Off the top of my head Common Design is where you each, as a group, decide to commit an act and are therefore all equally guilty regardless of what part of the act you actually commit while accessory is where you assist another person in the commission of the crime although you may not have committed the crime yourself or formed any intention to do so.

It's a mens rea distinction if memory serves. I may come back with a better answer tomorrow.

Lynnsie

Deleted User wrote: »

Common Design is where you each, as a group, decide to commit an act and are therefore all equally guilty regardless of what part of the act you actually commit while accessory is where you assist another person in the commission of the crime although you may not have committed the crime yourself or formed any intention to do so.

It's a mens rea distinction if memory serves. I may come back with a better answer tomorrow.

That's my understanding too, accessory applies more to secondary participants whereas in common design, all are equally responsible.

Dylan123

I am going over the my notes and wonder about the implications/ consequences. (perhaps a waist of time maybe not important for exam purposes)

*Accessory - The secondary offender can be tried as a principal, If he/she simply knows the nature of the offence. If some altercation happens both are equally responsible. So one goes beyond what the arrangement was, and they are both penalized as if they both committed the offence. (Arrange a burglary - violence occurs - both charged with robbery)

*Doctrine of common design. Joint enterprise where each is liable for the acts of that enterprise, including unusual consequences, but not beyond what was arranged. (Bank robbery - one kills - only one sentenced to murder)

So is that the main difference as an accessory the law is able to exert more power/ force on the offender. the Gardai/Dpp have more power to charge you as an accessory? (prob got it completely wrong)