2002 HSC question please help... (1 Viewer)

[still waiting]

We had the biggest debate with our legal teacher over this can anyone help me out and give their opinion...
the scenario:
"Helen plans to rob a bank. She needs someone to drive a get-away car. Helen calls Tom and threatens that if he doesnt drive the car she will stop supplying him with illegal drugs.
On the day of the robbery Tom sits in the car while Helen walks into the bank armed with a stolen gun. After a short wait Tom sees Helen running towards the car. The bank security guard chases and shoots at Helen. Helen turns and fires killing the guard.
In speeding away from the bank Tom drives through two red traffic lights."

we were answering the questions and we were trying to determine what tom would be charged as/ his role in the crime. we said that he would be principle in the 2nd degree but our teacher said it would be more likely that it would be accessory after the fact but that means that he wasnt there during the crime and didnt have prior knowledge of the crime....
what do you guys think?

 

[bEAbEA]

i think he would be accessory after the fact because he has helped helen after she comitted the crime, and although he was aware of it, he had was pressured into it, so therefore he does not have the same mens rea that a principal in the second degree would have.
But then, he will benefit from the crime, because Helen is providing him with drugs.

I couldn't be sure, but on instinct, I'd have to agree with your teacher.

 

[Jago]

2nd degree.

 

[paper cup]

2nd degree.

I think 2nd degree with mitigating circumstances...but hmm, your teacher says accessory, so I don't know and it's been ages since I touched crime.

 

[jonnathann]

Yeh I would say accessory after the fact. Tom didn't drive her to rob the bank and you would need to assist the principal in the first degree in committing the crime to be a principal in second degree.

 

[goan_crazy]

I would say principle in the second degree and accessory after the fact