Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Rook

[1993] 2 All ER 955

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 14:28 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Rook

X promised to pay D1 and D2 to kill his wife. On the day, D2 was nowhere to be found but D1 killed the wife anyway. D2 was also convicted for murder as an accessory. On appeal he pointed out that he wasn’t there on the day, took no part in the act and never intended that the wide should die (merely he hoped to take the money in advance and flee without partaking in the killing). CA rejected this, saying that one could be guilty as an accessory if one gave prior encouragement to D1 intentionally, with the foresight that there was a real risk of D1 committing that type of crime. Actual presence or intent that V should die is irrelevant. CA say that here D2 did even less to withdraw than B in Becerra and Cooper since he didn’t even communicate his withdrawal to the other parties to the crime. CA say it may be correct route to say that D2, wanting to withdraw has to do his best to disrupt the crime. 

R v Rook crops up in following areas of law