Compose a 2000 words essay on Problem essay. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... To understand and assess the question, it is necessary to know about the doctrine of com

Compose a 2000 words essay on Problem essay. Needs to be plagiarism free!

To understand and assess the question, it is necessary to know about the doctrine of common purpose or joint enterprise where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. However, Australian law takes a similar approach to English law with respect to the mens rea requirement for complicity.

Before attempt to Kirby J's view to the scope of liability it need to discuss McAuliffe v The Queen1 and the most important case Gillard v The Queen2. In McAuliffe v The Queen3, The High Court of Australia states that each of the parties to an arrangement or understanding is guilty of any crime falling within the scope of the common purpose which is committed in carrying out that purpose and it is sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to have realised that in the course of the joint enterprise. The culpability of the secondary participant in the event that the primary participant shot and killed or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm the victim would depend upon the scope of their common design that means joint criminal venture. In this case the participants are jointly liable for all that results from the acts and omissions occurring in the scope of their agreement.

Kirby J's view with reference to the scope of liability under principles of common purpose in Gillard v The Queen4 extended the doctrine of common purpose, and accessorial liabil...

G contends that the judge disastrous to leave manslaughter to the jury as a possible verdict in relation to each of the 2 men who were killed, and that this constituted a wrong decision on a question of law.

The case against P was very clear-cut. It was also the case against G, as it was left to the jury. The prosecution alleged that G was a party to the plan to kill and that he was well aware of the intention which P acted, the prosecution invited the jury to accept that G must have known that P was armed with a loaded gun. There was evidence as to the process involved in loading and cocking the weapon. P intended to show that it was very unlikely and he was well aware of the intention with which P acted. The proposition that G did not know that P was armed was implausible. Thus it was the case against G, as it was left to the jury.

The trial judge directed the jury that in order to convict G, the prosecution had to establish that P and G shared a common purpose to kill Knowles and had to exclude as a reasonable possibility of participating in robbery. The essence of G's complaint is that the case against him having been put to the jury as murder or nothing. There was a miscarriage of justice because the jury were deprived of the opportunity of considering an intermediate prospect of manslaughter.

In this case two issues were raised. The first issue arises is whether, contrary to the ruling of the primary judge, and of the Full Court affirming that ruling5, the jury should have been instructed that it was open to them to return verdicts of guilty of manslaughter in answer to the counts of the indictment charging the appellant with murder.