I need to ask a legal question please about disclosure of…

If they have been involved in the criminal offence then they will be charged as though they have committed it themselves.

It may be a defence to raise that but the police and authorities will look at the whole of the circumstances.

Look at the following link and in particular form point 3 - 5 which I have copies and pasted below in bold

http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Law/hemming/HEM_CLG_AssesPrep_Ch9.pdf

3. What are the different forms of other party criminal liability? The law has historically taken a hostile view of crimes committed by multiple offenders. To that end, the law has cast a wide net to encompass accessories to a crime. Such criminal responsibility takes three broad forms: first, complicity before the fact which covers the situation where a person aids, abets, counsels or procures an offence; secondly, common purpose where two or more persons form a common plan to commit an offence; and thirdly, accessory after the fact where a person knowingly assists another to avoid punishment. There is a degree of overlap between the two before the fact forms of extended liability, which is ultimately determined by the evidence as to the level of knowledge of each party involved.

4. In what ways do complicity and common purpose overlap? The common law surrounding criminal responsibility and other parties to offences has historically evidenced both complexity and controversy. As the High Court has acknowledged in McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108, 113 (Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gummow JJ), ‘[t]hose terms - common purpose, common design, concert, joint criminal enterprise - are used more or less interchangeably to invoke the doctrine which provides a means, often an additional means, of establishing the complicity of a secondary party in the commission of a crime’. The reference to ‘an additional means’ recognises that liability can attach beyond accessory before the fact (aids, abets, counsels or procures) and principal in the second degree (present at the scene and aids or abets).

5. Are accessories before and after the fact treated differently, and can an accessory be treated more severely than a principal? Accessories after the fact are generally treated (except to murder or where the court determines their conduct is more reprehensible than the principal offender) more leniently than accessories before the fact: typically, half of the greatest punishment to which an offender convicted of the offence is liable (s 545(3) in Qld and s 562(2)(b) in WA). Accessories after the fact are covered in s 10 of both Codes. 10 Accessories after the fact (Qld) A person who receives or assists another who is, to the person's knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable the person to escape punishment, is said to become an accessory after the fact to the offence. As far as the difference in treatment between accessory and principal is concerned, an accessory before the fact can be treated more severely than a principal. In GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198 at [23], Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ stated: [A]s the Court of Appeal pointed out in the present case, it is not a universal principle that the culpability of an aider and abettor is less than that of a principal offender … A manipulative or dominant aider and abettor may be more culpable than a principal. And even when aiders and abettors are less culpable, the degree of difference will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. In Johns v The Queen (1980) 143 CLR 108 at 117, Stephen J cited Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, 2nd ed (1961) at 404 to similar effect. [T]heir respective roles may of course bear upon the sentences to be imposed upon conviction, but not necessarily in a manner favourable to the accessory before the fact, who may prove to be the more blameworthy of the two. As Glanville Williams points out, Lady Macbeth was surely more blameworthy than was her husband and ‘The master mind and guiding spirit of a crime ring will probably receive a heavier sentence than his tools’. In addition to different treatment between accessory and principal, different verdicts are also open. Parties charged under either s 7 Principal offenders and s 8 Common purpose can be convicted of different offences. Specific provision is made for this in s 10A of the Criminal Code (Qld).

10A Interpretation of ch 2

(1) Under section 7, a person's criminal responsibility extends to any offence that, on the evidence admissible against him or her, is either the offence proved against the person who did the act or made the omission that constitutes that offence or any statutory or other alternative to that offence. (2) Under section 8, a person's criminal responsibility extends to any offence that, on the evidence admissible against him or her, is a probable consequence of the prosecution of a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, regardless of what offence is proved against any other party to the common intention. (3) This section does not limit any other provision of this chapter. There is no such provision in the Criminal Code 1913 (WA), but the position is the same as in Queensland by virtue of judicial interpretation: see Bardsley v The Queen [2004] WASCA 251 at [40] – [43] per Templeman J.

So the courts look at their actual role and what they have obtained from it.

If they were aiding and abetting the principal to commit the criminal offence they can be held liable because they assisted and without them it may not have been possible.

Common purpose is based on them also getting a benefit form the criminal offence taking place.

If they discovered after and acted in a way to stop the person that committed the offence from going to jail then this too is treated as though committed the offence.

The link is very detailed and also has examples and cases.

I hope this answers and assists you with your question today.

If you wish to have a phone call to discuss this in more detail please elect a call or I can send you a request.

I hope this makes sense and is of assistance. If you have found my answer to be helpful, please rate me five stars so I can get paid for my services to you. You rating my work 5 stars allows me to continue to provide a service to those who require it.

I am happy for you to ask further questions on anything you wish more detail on.

Let me know if I have answered your question today.

Regards

Leon