Secondary Parties

Question 1

The words in section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 should be given their ordinary meaning

Answer 1

Attorney General’s Reference (No1 of 1975)
There are some difficulties in application but as a rule of thumb, aiding and abetting implies participation at the time of the crime; and counselling and procuring implies participation prior to the crime

Question 2

Mere encouragement is sufficient

Answer 2

Gianetto (1997)
“I’m going to kill your wife” “Oh goody”; it is for the jury to decide applying their common sense and fairness whether P#s acts where done with the aider or abettor’s encouragement

Question 3

Unplanned presence can constitute evidence

Answer 3

Coney (1882)
D is a spectator at an illegal prize fight. It is up to the jury to decide whether guilty as a matter of fact. Unplanned presence CAN constitute evidence.
Wilcox v Jeffery (1951)
Went to watch saxophonist playing despite it being against terms of visa. The fact he met him at the airport and knew it was an illegal performance was important.
Clarkson (1971)
Entered a room where a rape was occurring, not sufficient for encouragement.

Question 4

Mere abstention from preventing an offence can in appropriate circumstances result in accomplice liability

Answer 4

Tuck v Robson (1970)
Allowed the employee to sell drinks after hours, should have done something obvious to prevent conviction e.g. collecting up glasses and moving customers out of the building.
Du Cros v Lambourne (1907)
The owner of the car was liable where they could not prove who was driving the car dangerously. Suspect decision as is a creation of a new class of crime regarding the duty to act of property owners.

Question 5

Not necessary to show a causal link between the counselling and the offence

Answer 5

Calhaem (1985)
It was sufficient that the crime took place within the scope of the advice given (to kill). There must be a) counselling, b) that a crime takes place and c) it occurs within the scope of the advice given

Question 6

It is possible to be guilty of procuring even though principles don’t know that’s what you are doing

Answer 6

Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)
Women’s drinks are laced and convicted of drinking driving. No need to show a consensus/meeting of minds. There just needs to be a causal link.

Question 7

The accomplice must (1) intend a voluntary act of assistance (2) with knowledge of the circumstances

Answer 7

NCB v Gamble (1959)
Allowed lorry driver ticket certifying they could leave colliery even though overweight. This was intention to assist despite no criminal motive. The offence could not have taken place without the assistance.

Question 8

The details of the crime do not need to be known, but knowledge of the type of crime is required

Answer 8

Bainbridge (1960)
Robbing a bank with drilling machinery is closely related to an offence cutting stolen goods
DPP v Maxwell (1979)
Drove a car for a protestant terrorist organisation. Claimed he did not known exactly what crimes would take place. Illegal bombing was on the “shopping list” of possible crimes which was not particularly extensive.
Not clear how far this doctrine will be stretched.

Question 9

Defensive necessity in assistance

Answer 9

Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority (1986)
Controversial case regarding the supply of contraception to teenage girls. Ruled the doctor’s exercise of their clinical judgement was a complete negation of the criminal requirement. According to the principles this seems wrong.

Question 10

Recklessness can be sufficient for intention to aid/abet

Answer 10

Bryce (2004)
Driven to spot to kill the victim but principle was undecided, didn’t kill until 13 hours later. Still guilty as an accomplice.

Question 11

A person must intend to bring about the principle offence in order to be charged with procuring

Answer 11

Blakely, Sutton (1991)
Women laced drinks with the intention of spending the night with them. The men drove home before the women could tell them. Real intention is required and recklessness will not suffice. Obiter suggests other types of assistance may only require recklessness. Makes sense with Byrce.

Question 12

Mendez (2010)

Answer 12

Ran up the street to attack after games went missing. Mendez couldn’t be liable if the direct cause of the victim’s death was something that was not foreseen by the defendant, or was likely to be more life threatening than the kinds of acts that are seen by the defendant. Only a broad judgement could be given in cases of spontaneous violence. Must conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant foresaw it could happen. Justified as causation which makes little sense as fundamental difference should be reason. Confusing area of law.

Question 13

Objections to the Powell, English approach

Answer 13

(1) The relevant fault element should be sufficient for conviction irrespective of the method used by the principle
(2) Accomplices can be liable for subjective recklessness, whereas the perpetrator needs to have intention

Question 14

Alternatives to Powell, English

Answer 14

(1) Woollin test for accomplices in all cases lacking fault element e.g. Gilmour (2000) didn’t know the bomb would be so big when drove people to set off, only guilty of manslaughter
(2) Abolish the mandatory life sentence

Question 15

Unclear law on fundamental difference

Answer 15

Greatrex (1999)
Kick and hit with an iron bar not qualitatively difference
Rahman (2008)
Foreseeing a real possibility of death with intent to cause GBH when in fact principle had intention to kill is sufficient; Lord Brown suggests fundamentally different weapon argument which is potentially problematic
Yehmoh (2009)
Use of a long bladed knife was the same as knowledge of a Stanley knife; Court of Appeal feel intention to kill/caused GBH with one weapon is not different to foreseeing that injury with a different weapon

Question 16

No principal offender

Answer 16

Bourne (1952)
Husband forced wife to have sex with a dog but she was not guilty due to the defence of duress. He was still convicted as a secondary party as he had the necessary mental elements.
Cogan and Leak (1976)
Forced wife to have sex with Cogan, Cogan didn’t realise she wasn’t consenting.

Question 17

Can be guilty of a more serious offence

Answer 17

Richards (1974)
Paid two men to beat up husband but only caused ABH; only guilty of accomplice to ABH; makes sense as attempted GBH only achieving ABH would not be a GBH conviction… reversed in Howe (1987)

Question 18

Physical intervention is sometimes necessary to repent

Answer 18

Becerra (1975)
Involved in a burglary, gave the other a knife. Running away was not effective withdrawal. Did not say what he ought to have done.

Question 19

Informing the police is sometimes necessary to revoke

Answer 19

Rook (1993)
Helped plan the murder but didn’t turn up at the killing. He required the fault elements in foreseeing risk of death/gbh so only thing that could amount to effective withdrawal would be informing the police.

Question 20

Communication not always necessary in cases of spontaneous violence

Answer 20

Mitchell (1999)
Mr Mitchell and two other men take part in a fight; after they left one of the men administered a further beating which killed the victim. Difficult to distinguish from Rook as had intended to cause GBH from the outset. Roberts says defined to own facts and generally communication is necessary.
O’Flaherty (2004)
No communication of withdrawal but broke away from the attack which was sufficient to dissociate from end result