Parties to a crime

Question 1

How do you distinguish between principal offenders and accessories?

Answer 1

The principal (P) is the person who, with appropriate mens rea, commits the actus reus of the offence. It is always possible to have more than one principal.

There are five ways in which someone can be liable as an accessory.
(1) To aid
(2) To abet
(3) To counsel
(4) To procure
(5) To be a party to a joint enterprise.

Question 2

Can someone be guilty of an offence if another person performs the AR?

Answer 2

n certain circumstances, a person may be guilty of an offence as a principal, even if another person actually performs the actus reus. This occurs where the person acting can be described as an ‘innocent agent’.

Question 3

What are examples of innocent agents?

Answer 3

A woman gave a child a dose of poison and the child gave it to the victim.
The woman was the principal offender.

An employer told his employees to make accounting transactions which (unknown to those employees) resulted in fraudulent transfers. The employer was the principal and the employees were innocent agents.

Question 4

What are the five ways in which someone can be liable as an accessory?

Answer 4

(1) To aid
(2) To abet
(3) To counsel
(4) To procure
(5) To be a party to a joint enterprise.

With the exception of procuring, these actions can be summarised as ‘assisting or encouraging the commission of the principal’s offence’.

Question 5

What is the AR and MR for accessory liability?

Answer 5

Actus reus
Any of the following five ways:
* To aid P in committing the offence
* To abet P in committing the offence
* To counsel P in committing the offence
* To procure P to commit the offence
* To be a party to a joint enterprise with P regarding one offence and during the enterprise P commits a second, different offence

Mens rea
* An intention to assist or encourage the principal’s conduct.
* If the crime requires a mens rea, an intention that the principal will do the actus reus with that mens rea. (Procuring would appear to be an exception to this rule.)
* Knowledge of existing facts or circumstances necessary for the offence to be criminal.

Question 6

What is the general rule for withdrawal with regards to secondary liability?

Answer 6

something must be done and communicated to the principal in the case of pre-panned violence (but not necessarily spontaneous violence) or a law enforcement agency.

Question 7

Conviction of secondary party and acquittal of principal?

Answer 7

Conviction of a secondary party and acquittal of the principal is possible and could occur when the principal has been acquitted due to insufficient evidence or the principal could not be found.
As long as it is clear that someone has committed the offence to which D was a secondary party, D can be convicted.

Question 8

How do attempts work with regard to secondary liability?

Answer 8

It is not an offence to attempt to aid, abet, counsel or procure an offence.

It is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt to commit an offence.

Question 9

Who decides whether a person has withdrawn from a joint enterprise?

Answer 9

The jury

Question 10

What does to aid P in committing the offence mean?

Answer 10

giving help, support or assistance before or at the time of the offence e.g. giving information, supplying tools or driving P

Question 11

What does to abet P in committing the offence mean?

Answer 11

incite, instigate or encourage P at the time of the offence which must be communicated to P.

Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not necessarily enough. If D has a right or duty to control the actions of another and refrains from doing so, this can be abetting e.g. parent, employer.

Question 12

To counsel P in committing the offence?

Answer 12

giving P advice or encouragement before the offence is committed.

There must be contact and consensus between P and D along with a connection between the advice and the crime.

Causation isn’t needed.

Question 13

To procure P to commit the offence?

Answer 13

to produce by endeavour. There must be a causal link between D’s act and P’s commission of the offence

Question 14

To be a party to a joint enterprise with P regarding one offence and during the enterprise P commits a second, different offence?

Answer 14

e.g. P and D commit burglary as principals, P murders the homeowner, D becomes an accessory to P’s murder.

Question 15

An intention to assist or encourage the principal’s conduct?

Answer 15

D must intend:
* to do the act which aids or encourages; and
* it to aid or encourage the commission of the crime (oblique intent is sufficient, conditional intent may be sufficient).

Question 16

What if he crime requires a mens rea (with regards to secondary liability)?

Answer 16

• Conditional intention is enough here.
• D can be liable for greater harm than intended for crimes where the MR does not correspond with the AR e.g. D might intend P do serious harm but if P does serious harm and V dies, D will be liable as an accessory to P’s murder.

Question 17

Knowledge of existing facts or circumstances necessary for the offence to be criminal?

Answer 17

e.g. if the offence requires lack of consent, D must know that the victim does not consent.

• A defendant who deliberately shuts their eyes to the obvious has knowledge.
• D need not know the exact details of the crime which will be committed e.g. V’s identity, the day of the crime or which of a number of crimes D knows P could commit.

Question 18

What the key case for joint enterprise?

Answer 18

R v Jogee

Question 19

Joint principals (or
co- principals)?

Answer 19

Where two or more people perform
the actus reus and the mens rea of
an offence together.

Question 20

When is a mental link required?

Answer 20

For abetting and counselling

Question 21

Situations where P is not convicted but A is?

Answer 21

1)he principal offender will escape liability as they satisfy the court, they have a
defence.
2)accomplice may be convicted is where the principal
cannot be found.

Question 22

Innocent agent?

Answer 22

An innocent agent is someone who commits the actus reus of a crime but who is not guilty of
the offence because they lack the mens rea.

Question 23

How can A withdraw participation?

Answer 23

Where the defendant has a change of heart before the offence takes place, they may do so
by communicating that withdrawal. However, this must be timely and unequivocal.

Where the defendant decides to withdraw after the offence has begun, they must do more
than simply communicate their intention to do so.

Words alone may suffice where the withdrawal takes place before the offence, unless
physical assistance has also been given.

Question 24

What happens if P goes beyond the scope of the crime?

Answer 24

If the principal goes beyond the scope of the plan, the accomplice must intend to assist
or encourage the principal in the commission of the ‘new’ offence. Foresight of what the
principal might do is evidence of such intent but no more.

Question 25

Question 1
The principal offender is told by his girlfriend that a man slapped her at a nightclub one
evening. She says: ‘If you find him, I hope you teach him a lesson!’ Later that night, the
principal comes across the man and knocks him to the ground, where he repeatedly kicks
and stamps on him. The man dies of his injuries.
Which of the following best describes whether the girlfriend satisfies the actus reus of
secondary liability for the man’s death?
A The girlfriend is a joint principal to the man’s death.
B The girlfriend does not satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability for the man’s death.
C The girlfriend abets the principal in the man’s death.
D The girlfriend counsels the principal in the man’s death.
E The girlfriend procures the principal in the man’s death.

Answer 25

Answer
Option D is correct. The girlfriend counsels the principal by encouraging him before the
death of the man takes place and, thus, she satisfies the actus reus of secondary liability.
Option A is wrong because the girlfriend is not a principal offender; her involvement is
a lesser one to the principal who actually carries out the attack. Option B is also wrong
as the girlfriend does satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability. Option C is wrong as
the girlfriend’s words of encouragement take place before the offence and abetting must
be during it. Option E is wrong because more is required to establish that the girlfriend
procured the killing. She only suggests the man be taught a lesson, whereas procurement
requires her to take a more active role and to produce his death by endeavour.

Question 26

Question 2
A man asks a woman if he can borrow her car. He tells her the car will be used as the
getaway vehicle for a burglary of Number 23, Sycamore Drive that evening. The woman
asks whether the man can find an alternative vehicle and only agrees reluctantly when he
says not. However, on approaching the house, it becomes apparent that the property is
occupied. The man drives away and then uses the car in a burglary of Number 15, Aspen
Close the following day.
Is the woman liable as an accomplice to burglary?
A No, because she only lent the car reluctantly and wanted the man to find an alternative
vehicle.
B No, because she was unaware of the burglary at Number 15 and believed the car
would be used in the burglary of Number 23.
C No, because although the woman satisfied the actus reus, she did not know the exact
details of the crime that was to be committed.
D Yes, because the woman abetted the offence and had knowledge of the circumstances
as she was aware that a burglary was to be committed.
E Yes, because the woman aided the offence, intended to do the act that assisted the
offence and had knowledge that a burglary would be committed.

Answer 26

Answer
The correct answer is option E. The woman aided the crime as she assisted by providing a
car before the offence took place. She intended to do the act (it was deliberate) and had
knowledge of the circumstances as she was aware of sufficient of the facts to know a crime
would be committed. Even though the woman does not have the mens rea for the actual
crime of burgling Number 15, Aspen Close on the following day, she is criminally liable as
this is the same type of offence as burgling a different house (Number 23, Sycamore Drive)
that same day, of which she did have knowledge.
Option A is wrong because it does not matter whether the woman lent the car reluctantly
provided the act was intentional, which it was. Option B is wrong as accomplice liability
only requires the defendant to know enough of the circumstances that make the conduct
criminal, not necessarily the exact address of the burglary. Option C is wrong as it is
irrelevant the woman did not know the exact details of the crime as long as the crime
was of the same type as that committed and here, it was. Option D is wrong as abetting
requires encouragement at the time of the offence and the woman assisted the crime
before it took place.

Question 27

Question 3
A girl and a boy have fallen out with the victim in their class because she reported them to
the school authorities for bullying her online. They decide to punish her in the next games
lesson by hitting her with a cricket bat. The girl acts as a lookout while the boy beats
the victim repeatedly with his cricket bat, causing a fractured jaw and a broken arm. He
confirms in his police interview that he intended to cause the victim serious bodily harm.
In contrast, the girl only thought that the boy would cause the victim some injury such as
bruising, just to ‘teach her a lesson that we don’t like snitches’ (those who inform on others).
The boy is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Which one of the
following correctly identifies the liability of the girl?
A Accomplice to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
B Accomplice to inflicting grievous bodily harm.
C Accomplice to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
D Principal to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
E No liability for the victim’s injuries.

Answer 27

Answer
The correct answer is option B. The girl commits the actus reus of accomplice liability as she
aids the offence. She also satisfies the first limb of the mens rea as she acted deliberately or
intentionally in being the lookout. She is an accomplice to a s 20 assault as she contemplated
the victim receiving ‘some injury such as bruising’ but not a really serious one. She aids the
agreed act (the assault) but with a different mens rea from that of the principal and so she
will be judged on the basis of her own level of mens rea.
Options A and C are wrong for the reasons set out in the discussion of option B. The girl
does not intend to assist or encourage the boy in causing the victim grievous bodily harm
with intent, or with intention or recklessness as to an assault only. The evidence is that the girl
thought the boy would cause the victim ‘some injury’.
Option D is wrong as the girl has a lesser involvement in the assault and is merely an
accomplice. The person who actually commits the assault is the principal offender – the boy.
However, because the boy has not completely departed from the plan, she does not escape
liability altogether, so E is wrong. This is because there was an agreement to assault the
victim, albeit not as severely as occurred.