The knowledge element for accessories to strict liability and limited cognition offences: Revisiting Tabe v The Queen

Malcolm Barrett, Joachim Dietrich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Parallelism, as it applies to accessorial liability, mandates that the accessory's fault element be the same as that of the principal. By the second half of the 20th century, parallelism had been rejected and replaced by the requirement that the Crown must prove that the accessory had knowledge of the "essential matters" that renders the principal's conduct unlawful, el(en in circumstances where the principal's knowledge of the essential matters does not have to be proven. The High Court's decision of Tabe, however, has breathed life back into the parallelism principle by applying it in the context of Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qid). The effect of the decision is that an accessory to the possession of a dangerous drug can be convicted without proof that he/she knew that the principal possessed a thing that was or was likely to be a dangerous drug. This article analyses the demise of parallelism, and its subsequent reinvigoration and argues that it should have been left in the pages of legal history.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)197-217
Number of pages21
JournalCriminal Law Journal
Volume38
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

liability
cognition
offense
drug
court decision
possession
act
history

Cite this

@article{852aa69bacbe4b998624630bb27ec91a,
title = "The knowledge element for accessories to strict liability and limited cognition offences: Revisiting Tabe v The Queen",
abstract = "Parallelism, as it applies to accessorial liability, mandates that the accessory's fault element be the same as that of the principal. By the second half of the 20th century, parallelism had been rejected and replaced by the requirement that the Crown must prove that the accessory had knowledge of the {"}essential matters{"} that renders the principal's conduct unlawful, el(en in circumstances where the principal's knowledge of the essential matters does not have to be proven. The High Court's decision of Tabe, however, has breathed life back into the parallelism principle by applying it in the context of Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qid). The effect of the decision is that an accessory to the possession of a dangerous drug can be convicted without proof that he/she knew that the principal possessed a thing that was or was likely to be a dangerous drug. This article analyses the demise of parallelism, and its subsequent reinvigoration and argues that it should have been left in the pages of legal history.",
author = "Malcolm Barrett and Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "197--217",
journal = "Criminal Law Journal",
issn = "0314-1160",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "4",

}

The knowledge element for accessories to strict liability and limited cognition offences : Revisiting Tabe v The Queen. / Barrett, Malcolm; Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2014, p. 197-217.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The knowledge element for accessories to strict liability and limited cognition offences

T2 - Revisiting Tabe v The Queen

AU - Barrett, Malcolm

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Parallelism, as it applies to accessorial liability, mandates that the accessory's fault element be the same as that of the principal. By the second half of the 20th century, parallelism had been rejected and replaced by the requirement that the Crown must prove that the accessory had knowledge of the "essential matters" that renders the principal's conduct unlawful, el(en in circumstances where the principal's knowledge of the essential matters does not have to be proven. The High Court's decision of Tabe, however, has breathed life back into the parallelism principle by applying it in the context of Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qid). The effect of the decision is that an accessory to the possession of a dangerous drug can be convicted without proof that he/she knew that the principal possessed a thing that was or was likely to be a dangerous drug. This article analyses the demise of parallelism, and its subsequent reinvigoration and argues that it should have been left in the pages of legal history.

AB - Parallelism, as it applies to accessorial liability, mandates that the accessory's fault element be the same as that of the principal. By the second half of the 20th century, parallelism had been rejected and replaced by the requirement that the Crown must prove that the accessory had knowledge of the "essential matters" that renders the principal's conduct unlawful, el(en in circumstances where the principal's knowledge of the essential matters does not have to be proven. The High Court's decision of Tabe, however, has breathed life back into the parallelism principle by applying it in the context of Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qid). The effect of the decision is that an accessory to the possession of a dangerous drug can be convicted without proof that he/she knew that the principal possessed a thing that was or was likely to be a dangerous drug. This article analyses the demise of parallelism, and its subsequent reinvigoration and argues that it should have been left in the pages of legal history.

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 197

EP - 217

JO - Criminal Law Journal

JF - Criminal Law Journal

SN - 0314-1160

IS - 4

ER -