Dealing with complexity: Different approaches to explaining accessory liability

[Extract] It is not uncommon for different areas of law to deal with similar problems in disparate ways. Further, legal discourse in one field may not engage with discourse in another. Indeed, in an era of increasing legal specialization it is easy to remain oblivious to developments and approaches in other areas of law. An example is provided by accessory liability areas. It also remains 'undertheorised' in some areas, or replete with overly technical distinctions and complexities in others. Such different treatment of accessory liability means that any survey of accessory liability across the legal spectrum almost certainly creates a complex picture. Those complexities may be the result of many factors: different legal terminology being used to describe similar concepts, different concepts being employed to solve similar problems; and the 'accident' of historical developments. Of course, some differences in approaches within each field are undoubtedly the result of substantive differences that justify - indeed, necessitate- different legal rules and outcomes in particular contexts: the differing policy, purposes and functions of the law in context X may warrant a different law of accessories to that in context Y.