Accesorial Liability

Question 1

Accessories & Abbetors Act 1861, s8

Answer 1

“Whosoever shall aid,abet,counsel or procure the commision of any indictable offence … shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender”

criticism by Law Com: Offences overlap a lot. simplification to assisting or encouraging)

Question 2

Aiding

Answer 2

S&S- S aids P by assiting, helping, or giving suport to P in the commision of a crime

Question 3

J.C Smith

Answer 3

They must be of actual assistance: merely trying to help is not enough

Question 4

Gogerly 1818

Answer 4

Assistance need not be substantial.If T acts as lookout for P during robbery, he is a party to the robberyeven should there be no need to give a warning.

Question 5

Blakely v DPP [1991]

Answer 5

Assistance needn’t take place at the scene of the offence

Question 6

Larkins v. Police [1987]

Answer 6

Also Principal need not be aware of help

Question 7

Abetting

Answer 7

Dictionary definition: to incite by aid, to instigate, or to encourage.

Question 8

A-G v Able [1984]

Answer 8

Abetting at common law only happens during the crime. While counselling is prior to the crime.
- Porviding information is sufficient.

Question 9

Royce [1767]

Answer 9

The encouragement may be by words

Question 10

Clarkson [1971]

Answer 10

Mere presence which does not by itself encourage is insufficient: “there must be an intention to encourage; and here must also be encouragement in fact”- Edmund Davies J

Question 11

Coney [1882]

Answer 11

Sufficient that S part of group offering encouragement & that P is aware of the groups behaviour, albeit unaware of S’s individual conduct. e.g attendance at an illegal prize fight= abetting battery by fighters.

Question 12

Wilcox v. Jeffery [1951]

Answer 12

P must be aware of encouragement but it need not be shown that P was in any way be influenced by it.

Question 13

Counselling

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)- “to encourage”

Answer 13

Baker [1909]- includes the provision of advice or informaton ( such conduct could also amount to a&a e.g A-G Able[1984]-provided booklet w/ info on commiting suicide)
Calhaem [1985]- urging someone to commit an offence

Question 14

Procuring

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975).

Answer 14

Lord Widgery CJ opined: “To procure means to produce by endeavour. You procure a thing by setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps to produce that happening”.

Question 15

Barton v Armstrong [1976]

Answer 15

S’s conduct must in fact play somepartin influencing P.

Question 16

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975).

Answer 16

P may be entirely ignorant of S’s role. Where an offence can be commited w/o MR, and the innocent agent doctrine does not apply. (e,g S laces P’s drink P convicted of driving w/ excess alcohol-strict liability offence. S guilty of procuring the offence.

Question 17

Calhaem [1985]

Question 18

A-g V.Able [1984]

Answer 18

• Will not work if P has forgotten the advice.
• no requirement that encouragement counselling “made a difference” (e.g if they would have tried to comit suicide anyway”.

Question 19

Webster [2006]

Answer 19

Person may be held liable as party for omitting to interfere & prevent offence when she has duty to do so and/or power of control over the principal or victim. Coupled with the present ability to intervene.

Question 20

Du Cros v Lambourne [1907]

Answer 20

No need to show that S’s no intervention actually assisted or encouraged.
Omission to intevene must occur at a time when S had requisite MR.

Question 21

MR for Participation by assistance or encouragement

Answer 21

• > S must intend his own contribution (aid,abett etc..)
• > S must appreciate the nature of P’s actions. Thatis, S must know or foresee the “essential matters” relating to P’s actions which make those actions an offence.

Question 22

S’s own contribution

Answer 22

It does not matter if they didnt intend P’s crime. But must have intended the action that facilitated P’s crime. - Bryce [2004] National Coal Board v. Gamble [1959]
Recklessness is insufficent- Scott [1978]

Question 23

For procurement

Answer 23

S must intend to help bring about about that P will commit the crime itself.

Question 24

Defence

Answer 24

Duress - Fretwell [1862] (e.g threatning to kill oneself)

Necessity- Gillick [1986](e.g. giving contraceptinve to under 16.

Question 25

P’s Criminal conduct

Answer 25

Must have knowledge or foresight of essential matters- Johnso v. Youden[1950]

Question 26

degree of knowledge

Answer 26

True belief - Saik[2006]

Suspicion is not enough- Webster [2006]

Question 27

Antonelli [1905]

Answer 27

In case of willfull blindness S will be treated as having knowledge

Question 28

Callow v Tillstone [1900] Bainbridge [1960]

-

Answer 28

Cannot be negligent belief/failure to to enuire the facts

-

Question 29

Sufficiency of recklessnes

Answer 29

Law com- notwithsatanding dicta in Youden, whenever case has turned on the point of knowledge, rekclessness has been sufficient to convict the accesory.
Carter v Richardson [1974]- test was if S Kew it was “probable”
Bryce - “real or substantial risk”

Question 30

S & S Crim law criticism of MR requirement

Answer 30

against seeming relaxation of knowledge into foresight. the required MR ought to to be strict in order to prevent over-criminalisation of conduct that does not itself cause a criminal har,.

Question 31

Essential matters

Answer 31

• > type of offence intended (and eventually committed) by P - Bainbridge [1960]
• > That P would commit any one of the number of offences, the “list” of which includes the type of offence that was eventually commited. - Dpp for NI v. Maxwell [1978]

Question 32

Bainbridge [1960]

Answer 32

Supplies oxygen cutting equipment. Knew it was for “illegal venture”. This was deemed insufficent. knowledge.

Question 33

Maxwell 1978

Answer 33

Drove car for Terrorist org, knowing that terorist attack was planned, but uncertain on how the attack would be perpertrated. Carried out by bomb. S found guilty as he coemplated range.

Question 34

MR of Principle

Answer 34

S must foresee that P will do the A with the lvl of MR required for it to amount to anoffence- Cruse [1838]
S must forsee even ulterior intent- Maxwell [1978]

Question 35

Strict liability

Answer 35

S need not forese consequencecs of P conduct. essential matters consist only of conduct(e.g. dangerous driving causing death) He will be liable of same consequences as P. Death= strict liability offence, not essential matter. Need not be foreseen by either P or S