The liability of secondary parties in homicide in the UK - Essay Example

This research paper explores the liability of secondary parties in homicide in the UK as per common law and as per the existing criminal laws in UK.The operation of Western Legal Systems shows that the Criminal Law exhibits two separate paradigms of responsibility. One, where individual justice is paramount. Much devotion in this research paper will be given to the standard that is to be perused at common law for foresight of outcomes at common law where homicide has happened due to joint criminal enterprises and the involvement of a secondary party in such offences.

This research paper will also give prominence to the fact how international humanitarian law deals with the joint criminal enterprises unleashed by a state and its officials against a race or community and how they will be considered under the international criminal law as delinquent. Further, whether corporate can also be punishable for their involvement in manslaughter like an individual person will also be discussed in detail in this paper? This research paper will discuss the liability of secondary parties in homicide in UK by analysing the current laws on the subject in UK, the common law and the potential reforms to be carried out on the “common purpose ‘rule under the criminal codes.

Introduction Secondary liability under criminal law can be explained as making accountable someone legally for engaging in or to assist or facilitating or being in some other manner accountable for acts done by another party1. It is a difficult and complex area of law to fix the criminal liability for abetting and helping another individual to carry out an offence. When an offence is being carried out by two or more persons, if only some of them are really the real culprits or perpetrators of the offence, then issue becomes more complex.

Under criminal law, the person will be held liable if he carries out the actus reus of the offence. Joint enterprise is an intricate notion that permits multiple parties to a crime to be sentenced of the same crime. Thus, in case of joint enterprise, accountability will be inflicted not only to the main offender who causes the deadly blow but also any secondary culprits who have been associated in carrying out of offence. However, convicting a secondary party for a murder offence has been under severe examination and often, under review for many years.

Awarding of mandatory life sentence to a secondary party in a homicide case may seem to be unbalanced to the role an individual has assumed in the carrying of a crime whereas it is argued that mandatory life sentence should be awarded to those culpable of causing a serious blow. However, the law is unambiguous in this regard and s.8 of Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861 clearly emphasises that both main and secondary parties are to be given equal treatment before the law2. The above section states that whomsoever shall assist, abet, gain or counsel the perpetration of a cognisable offence shall be accountable to be tried, sentenced and punished as the main culprit.

The question, whether a secondary party should be given equal treatment to that of a main culprit is incredibly intricate, and it always create chaos3. This research essay will make an earnest attempt to examine in detail liability of secondary parties in homicide in the UK and will make how the present law needs to be revamped so that abettors of homicide also get equal sentence as that of a principal perpetrator of a crime. “Section 8 of Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861” The following three significant three points have to be borne in mind while analysing the section 8 of Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861.

Section 8 mirrors the common law notion that helping, encouraging, or counselling or inducing another individual to carry out a crime is not itself a separate crime. However, due