Parties to a crime

Question 1

What are principle offenders?

Answer 1

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

E.g. committing a burglary together - joint principles

Question 2

What are innocent agents?

Answer 2

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

E.g.
- 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 them) resulted in fraudulent transfers. The employer was the principal and the employees were innocent agents.

Question 3

Who are secondary parties?

Answer 3

These are people who are accessories to a crime. There are five wars 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

These are ‘assisting or encouraging the commission of the principal’s offence’ (except for procuring)

Question 4

Can a party withdraw their help or encouragement from a crime?

Answer 4

It is not enough to have a change of mind. Something must be done, and at the very least, the withdrawal must be communicated to the principal or a law enforcement agency.

Withdrawal must take place before the principal commits the crime (as the mens rea is at the time of assistance)

Minimum: unequivocal communication of intention to withdraw - it may be further steps are necessary to neutralise their actions.

May be less onerous for acts of spontaneous violence.

Question 5

Can someone be convicted as a secondary party if the principal is acquitted?

Answer 5

Yes it is possible.
- not enough evidence for principal, has a valid defence, could not be found

Question 6

What happens if it can not be proven which of the two people committed the crime?

Answer 6

General rule: if it cannot be proved which of the two people committed the crime, both must be acquitted.

However, if it can be proved that the one who did not commit the crime as the principal was a secondary party to the crime, they both can be convicted as secondary parties.

Question 7

Is aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring an inchoate?

Answer 7

No 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 8

What is procuring?

Answer 8

Means to produce by endeavour.

e.g. adding alcohol to someones drink

Must be a causal link between D’s act and the commission of the offence.

Question 9

What is aiding?

Answer 9

It requires the accessory to give help, support or assistance to the principal offender in carrying out the principal offence.

Examples:
- supplying materials or tools to commit the offence
- giving information which helps the principal to commit a crime
- holding down a victim in assault

No need for consensus or for causation.

Question 10

Assisting before or after the fact

Answer 10

Before the fact: one who helps before the crime - aiding

After the fact: no longer an offence, would fall under “assisting an offender” s4 Criminal Law Act 1967

Question 11

What is counselling?

Answer 11

Giving advice or encouragement before the commission of the offence.

No need for causal link (ie no need to apply a but for test) - but there must be a connection between the counselling and the offence. Must be done within the scope of the advice and the principal offender must know of the counselling.

Question 12

What is abetting?

Answer 12

Inciting, instigating or encouraging.

Suggested it means encouraging at the time the offence is being committed. (counselling is before).

There need be no casual link and there must be communication - the principal must know they are being abetted.

Must be more than mere presence at the scene.

Question 13

Abetting: failure to prevent an offence

Answer 13

Where D has the right or duty to control the actions of another and deliberately refrains from exercising it, D’s inactivity may be positive encouragement to the other to perform an illegal act and would therefore be abetting.

e.g.
- man who watched his wife drown their children was guilty of aiding and abetting

• if a licensee of a pub stands by and watched their customers drinking after hours, the licensee is guilty of aiding and abetting them in doing so
• could be convicted for abetting speeding is in control could and ought to have prevented someone from driving in a dangerous manner

Question 14

What is joint enterprise?

Answer 14

Where two people (or more) are committing a crime together and then one of the parties goes on to commit a different crime.

No need to show enouragement or aid.

Crime B must be committed in the course of or be incidental to crime A. e.g. during a burglary D1 stabs the homeowner.
Enough for D2 to be party to the joint enterprise and had the relevant mens rea for an accessory.

Question 15

What is the mens rea for secondary party?

Answer 15

Three parts:

1) An intention to assist or encourage the principal’s conduct

2) If the crime requires a mens rea, an intention that the principal will do the actus reus with that mens rea. (procuring is an exception)

3) Knowledge of existing facts or circumstances necessary for the offence to be criminal.

Question 16

Mens rea: an intention to aid or encourage

Answer 16

This has two elements, D must intend:

1) to do the act which aids or encourages; and

2) it to aid or encourage the commission of the crime

For example, if D supplied P with a gun which P uses to commit a murder, it must be proved that D intended to give it to P (rather than accidentally leaving it around) and P to use it to cause serious harm to someone.

Note: intention does not mean desire, enough to have oblique intent.

Do not need to have a positive intent that the crime be committed - sufficient D intended their act might assist in the crime, even if it cannot be said that it definitely will do so, liable even if they have no further interest in whether or not P commits the crime.

Question 17

Mens rea: intention the P will commit the crime with the necessary mens rea

Answer 17

Condition intention: enough if D has a conditional intent P will commit a crime with the necessary mens rea e.g. if D supplies P with a gun to use in a burglary and intends P to use it to cause serious harm only if disturbed this is enough (useful in joint enterprise) BUT little guidance

Where mens rea does not correspond to the actus reus: eg intention the other party does serious harm is enough for them to be liable for murder (even if that wasn’t the actual intention)

Question 18

Mens rea: knowledge of the facts or circumstance

Answer 18

• If the offence requires goods to be stolen, D needs to know that they are stolen.
• If the offence requires lack of consent D must know that the victim does not consent.

Must know the facts which give the transaction its criminal character.

But doesn’t work for wilful blindness - a defendant who deliberately shuts their eyes to the obvious will be deemed to have knowledge.

Does not need to know all the details eg identity of victim or the day on which the crime is committed.

Enough to know that the principal may commit any one of a number of crimes including the one they commit

Question 19

What if the defendant has a lesser intent?

Answer 19

If a person is a party to a violent attack on another, without an intent to assist in the causing of death or really serious harm, but the violence escalates and results in death, that person will be not guilty as an accessory to murder but can be guilty as a principal for the crime of manslaughter