2016 GENERAL LAWS A1vfENDMENT (e) No.3 the assister is present with the actual perpetrator during the commission of the crime; and the State adduces any evidence that the assister knew or realised that there was a real risk or possibility that a crime of the kind in question would be committed; in which event the assister shall be liable as a co-perpetrator.". (I) 25. In section 199 ("Liability of accomplice for further c1imes committed by actual perpetrator")(a) by the deletion of the title to the section and the substitution of"Liability of principal or accomplice for further crimes committed by actual perpetrator"; (b) by the insertion before "accomplice" wherever it occurs of "principal or". 26. By the repeal of section 200 and the substitution of- "200 Withdrawal from crime by principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice (1) A person shall not be guilty as a principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice of a crime committed by an actual perpetrator if, before the crime has been committed, the person prevents the commission of the crime, whether by having given timely warning to a police officer to enable the police officer or other person to prevent its commission, or otherwise: Provided that the factthata principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice succeeded in stopping the crime authorised by him or her or with which he or she was associated does not relieve the principal or co-perpetrator of liability for an attempt, incitement or conspiracy to commit the crime. (2) The fact that a principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice of a crime changes his or her mind and unsuccessfully took action to prevent the actual perpetrator from committing the crime shaH not relieve the principal or co-perpetrator from liability for the c1ime: Provided that a court shall, among other relevant considerations, mitigate the sentence that may be imposed on the principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice if(a) (b) (c) the principal, co-perpetrator or accomplice, before the commission of the crime, took all possible steps within his or her power to stop the actual perpetrator from committing the crime; and in the absence ofthe circumstances that intervened to fmstratc the prevention of the crime, the steps actually taken would have stopped the crime from being committed; and the circumstances that intervened to frustrate the prevention of the crime were not reasonably foreseeable.". 27. In section 222 ("Voluntary intoxication leading to unlawful conduct") by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2)"(3) If a person, while in a state of voluntary intoxication, is provoked into any criminal conduct by something which would not have provoked that person had he or she not been intoxicated, he or she shall be guilty of voluntary intoxication leading to unlawful conduct.". 89