Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Gianetto

[1997] 1 CAR 1

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 14:21 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Gianetto

 D was charged with murdering V and judge said it was open to jury to convict if they were satisfied that D had at least been an accessory, if not the principal. CA dismissed appeal, saying the prosecution did not need to specify whether D was accessory or principal and the jury do not need to be unanimous on which basis they are convicting D of murder (since accessories are to be tried as principal offenders under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861). The important thing is to prove that D had necessary mens rea and actus reus so that D knows the case he has to answer. CA say any involvement of mere encouragement upwards would suffice. In trial the judge (with CA’s blessing) said that if a man responded “oh goody” to being told that X would kill his wife, then he was an abettor. 

R v Gianetto crops up in following areas of law