English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Results: The analysis of the current case law points to the absence of clear criteria for the delimitation of complicity from aiding and abetting in the criminal offense of robbery. Criminal law theory leaves too much empty space subject to manipulation when, by mentioning substantial contribution, it refers to behaviors without which an offense could not have been committed in the planned manner. The will of the perpetrator should constitute a secondary tool to be used only in controversial, borderline situations, where the nature of the behavior not pertaining to the essence of the criminal offense, due to its character and importance within the joint plan, requires it to be equated with the perpetration act. In that regard, as the joint plan is not a term that can be fully objectified since the importance of roles within the plan can vary from one group of perpetrators to another, assessing the will of the perpetrator can be an alternative to resort to in situations where it is not possible to evaluate the quality of a behavior based on objective rules.

Delimitation of co-perpetration from aiding and abetting in the criminal offence of robbery