FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,294 times | Saved to 219 briefcases
Dunlop and Sylvester v The Queen, [1979] 2 SCR 881

Facts:

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

Issue(s):

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?

Ratio:

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

Analysis:

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

Comments:

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.