'D gives P chocolates to give to V. V eats them and dies because they are poisoned. D knew the chocolates were poisoned and would kill anyone who ate them....It cannot be rightthatD is guilty of MurderifP is unaware that the chocolates are poisonedbut only ofassisting murderifP is aware that the chocolates are poisoned. D's conduct and state of mind are identical in each case.' Do you agree? Are the basis for and operation of accessory liability under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 satisfactory in this respect?