Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

13 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
4 Forms Of Art and Part
1) By common plan
2) By Instigation
3) By provision of Material Assistance
4) By taking part in the commission
Common Plan of Art and Part
The existence of common plan may be shown by agreement/conduct. Must be proved beyond reasonable doubt there was a common plan and the accused were parties to the common plan. If a common plan is not proven each co-accused is judged individually.
HMA v Lappen and Others 1956
Art and Part By Instigation
Occurs when one person procures another to commit a crime such as a contract killing. Advice is not enough.
Miekleham and Parker v HMA 1998
Art and part by provision of material assistance
A supplier of material assistance towards a crime who does not counsel, instigate or participate may still be guilty of art and part. That person must have knowledge of the criminal plot. The assistance given or material supplied must have real connection with the contemplated crime and the asisstance must be for the commission of an imminent crime.
HMA v Johnstone and Stewart 1926
Art and Part by taking part in the commission
The Crown must establish that each co-accused shared the common criminal purpose. The art and part liability can arise spontaneously without the need of a common plan. Where concert is proved the individual is responsible for all group actions in pursuit of the common purpose
Gallacher v HMA 1951
Ways to Avoid Art and Part Liability
1) Withdrawal from the common plan
2) Pre concert
3) Early Participation only
4) Latecoming
Withdrawing from the common plan
Must also take steps to prevent its completion. If a crime is being contemplated and a participator then quits, they cannot be held to act in concert. Once the planned crime begins there is no escaping art and part
MacNeil and others v HMA
Observing a crime
Cannot be held as art and part liabile
Lawler v Neizer 1993
Pre Concert
Where there is a common plan, each accused who is party to the common plan is guilty for what the group does further to the common plan. Where one member goes beyond the original common plan, the liability will depend on how far the actions beyond the common plan were forseeable. If one party carries a weapon, the determining factor is forseeability.
Boyne v HMA 1990
Common Plan for Homicide Cases
The common criminal purpose must include the material risk of life being taken before all co-accused can be convicted for murder.
No Pre Concert
Responsibility of each co-accused determined by overall knowledge of situation and foreseeability of eventual outcome.
Early Participation Only
Participation in an assault at an early stage will not necessarily give rise to art and part guilt of homicide if it could have been foreseen that the assault would be fatal, as long as no further part is played.
Codona v HMA 1996
A latecomer who is unaware of earlier (fatal) attacks may not be implicated in murder if that is the outcome.

Responsibility may depend on the knowledge of the individuals acting in concert or the role which it can be proved that they played as per
Kabalu v HMA 1999

HMA v Welsh and McLachlan 1897