In the case of R v Dunlop and Sylvester, what was the key factor for establishing culpability?

In the case of R v Dunlop and Sylvester, the key factor for establishing culpability centered around the concept of prior knowledge of the criminal intent of the principal offender. The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the importance of mens rea, or the mental element of a crime, in determining an accessory's culpability.

In this case, the court examined whether the accused had sufficient knowledge of the perpetrator's intention to commit a crime, which contributed significantly to determining their level of liability. Unlike mere presence at the scene or being a bystander, having prior knowledge indicated a level of complicity and a conscious decision to assist or facilitate the crime, rather than just being an inadvertent witness.

Additionally, physical involvement in the act is also relevant but not as critical as understanding the mental state associated with the crime. The court's focus was on the mental element and the existing relationship between the accused and the principal offender, highlighting the necessity of shared knowledge of the criminal purpose for establishing culpability in this case.