Our offices are open as usual over the Easter break

R v Chan Wing-Siu

331 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] AC 168

Parasitic Accessory Liability, foresight and intent

Facts

On May 31st 1980, the Appellant along with two others, in Kowloon, entered the premises of the two victims (a husband and wife) in order to collect a debt. Two of the three assailants knew that the others carried knives. The wife opened the door and all three men pushed inside. They drew knives, one (by the name of Tse) was left to guard the wife while the other two fought with the husband. The husband was stabbed and later died, while the two who assailed him also suffered substantial injuries in the struggle. The wife was not able to see which of the two assailants stabbed her husband. As they were leaving, one of them also slashed her across the head, but she could not see who it was. The defendants Chan and Tse denied being involved with the stabbing of the husband and Wong admitted to stabbing him in self-defence after he had been attacked with knives. All three defendants asserted that the husband attacked them first. The defendants were charged under Chapter 212, Section 17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Hong Kong) and convicted of murder.

Issue

Whether foresight of the possibility that the principal may commit a crime which went beyond the plan of the initial joint venture was sufficient mens rea to justify a conviction under accessory liability.

Held

It was sufficient for a conviction under the principle of joint enterprise/parasitic accessory liability that a defendant foresees that the principal may commit an offence which goes beyond the plan, even if he does not intend that the offence be carried out. Foresight in this case is sufficient intent. Overturned by R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

купить систему автоматического полива

купить авто полив

Current Offers