An Ongoing Debate on The Law of Criminal Complicity After Jogee

The liability of a defendant in a criminal case depends upon proof of fault. One of the most common fault element is the intention. When the criminal complicity is under consideration i.e. when twomore people join a criminal enterprise to commit an offence, the statement does not change. Thus, the mental state of both accessories and princi-pals should be consistent. However, after Jogee, the current situation regarding the mental element of both accessories and principals has a risk that a new defacto disparity takes place.

This dissertation discusses how the disparity problem between the liability of accessories and prin¬cipals can be handled. Moreover, it is adopted that this disparity leads to injustice in opposition to a claim that requiring different conditions for both the principals and accessories is a normal situation.

The dissertation's scope is only limited certain part of the law of criminal complicity. As Andrew Simester has observed when accesso-rial liability is considered, there were two separate routes prior to the Jogee to attribute liability. The first was the traditional way of accom-plice liability prescribed by s. 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. Pursuant to this section, ifan individual assistsencourages another to commit an offence, he becomes liable as a result of his actions.