General Discussion

It doesn't say what you think it does.

The part you copied and posted refers to the application of the law against participants in a riot as outlined in the sentence right before it, not all applications of the law. Participants in a riot or protest where things got violent were being charged with it even if they had not committed violent acts or any crime at all, and that was an application even further than US law takes it.

The entire doctrine was not overturned, they just tightened it so the application was closer to what we have in the US. Prior to that you could be charged even if you had not committed a criminal act but just could have foreseen that an act, even legal, would have ended in the criminal act. Now you have to be a participant in the criminal act for the law to be applied, as it is in the US.

For example the case that overturned it involved a person who simply brought a person into the presence of another person knowing they were angry at them and could hurt them, but did not break the law. They charged them with the murder despite the defendant not breaking any law. That was overturned.

Under the law as it is still applied there this case would still qualify had it happened there, because she was a participant and co-conspirator in the crime and not just a person acting otherwise lawfully who should have reasonably known that her acts could lead to harm.