FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,242 times | Saved to 216 briefcases
Dunlop and Sylvester v The Queen, [1979] 2 SCR 881


Motorcycle gang and B at park. About 18 guys had sex with B. D and S came with beer. They said they were just dropping it off and saw B having sex someone but didn’t know what was going on. B indentified D and S from lineup


Does the fact that the accused were present for part of the assault and did nothing to assist the victim amount to aiding and abetting?


Mere presence or passive acquiescence is not sufficient for liability w/o encouragement of principal offender or act of facilitation.
**Mere presence itself cannot be interpreted to be encouragement


Presence at the commission of an offence can be evidence of aiding and abetting if accompanied by other factors – such as: prior knowledge of the offender’s intentions to commit the offence, or attendance for the purpose of encouragement.

R v Salajko – girl rapped, 3 people charged, S was near girl with pants down did not have intercourse with her
**Holding was the what S did was not encouragement


R v Salajko – this decision was an anomaly and should not be followed

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.