2 people killed. Reports on tv that L did it. D let L stay with him after seeing the broadcasts. D said he didn’t want to know what L did so he never asked
Does s.23(1) require proof that the accused knew or was willfully blind to the fact that L committed a murder, or just that he had committed some unlawful act?
Where the Crown proves the existence of a fact in issue and knowledge of that fact is a component of the MR of the crime charged, willful blindness as to the existence of the fact is sufficient to establish a culpable state of mind
R v Vinette (1974) - The accused had to know that L had committed murder or been party to a murder – not just an unlawful offence to be convicted of accessory after the fact to homicide.
A charge laid under s.23(1) must allege the commission of a specific offence and the Crown must prove that the alleged accessory knew that the person assisted was a party to that offence.
It is no defence for D to say that had I asked him he wouldn’t have told me he killed someone
Willful blindness under s.23(1) can fulfill the MR requirement of knowledge