Art and Part Liability

Martin v Hamilton (1989)

Art and part liability cannot arise after the fact.

MacNeil v HM Advocate (1986)

Cannot escape criminal liability by withdrawing from the common plan once perpetration of the crime has commenced.

Gallacher v HM Advocate (1951)

Anyone who shares the common criminal purpose and participates in the commission of the crime is guilty of the crime, no matter how minor his role.

Docherty v HMA (2003)

In a homicide case, where there is no pre-concert, the responsibility of each accused may be assessed separately, allowing them to be found guilty of different crimes.

Hopkinson v HM Advocate (2009)

In a murder case, even when a co-accused goes to the locus armed with a weapon, it must be left to the jury to decide whether the common purpose included the taking of life or the material risk of life being taken. If it did not, the common plan has been exceeded and the co-accused will not be guilty of murder on an art and part basis.

Poole v HM Advocate (2009)

Mental element in art and part murder cases where there is pre-concert is whether or not it was objectively foreseeable to a co-accused that such violence was liable to be used as carried an obvious risk of life being taken.

Geo Kerr and Others (1871)

Merely observing a crime is not enough to establish art and part liability.

Boyne v HM Advocate (1980)

Where an accused goes beyond the terms of the common plan, his co-accused will not be guilty on an art and part basis provided that the actions were completely unforeseeable to him.

McKinnon v HM Advocate (2003)

Where there is a common plan, the responsibility of the co-accused is judged objectively. The court firstly determines what crime has been committed and secondly finds all persons who were party to the common plan guilty of that. In homicide, if there is an obvious risk of life being taken - murder. If the act was unforeseeable and goes out-with the common purpose - may be reduced to culpable homicide.

Capuano v HM Advocate (1985)

An accessory may be found guilty of the crime charged even if the principle offender is acquitted.

Kabalu v HM Advocate (1999)

Attacking the victim after a murderous attack has been carried out is not sufficient to make co-accused guilty for the murder if he could not have known that such violence had previously been used.

Cadona v HM Advocate (1996)

Participation at the outset of an attack only, when the accused could not have known that the violence would escalate, is insufficient to establish art and part liability for the fatal consequences of the spontaneous attack.