Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Parties to Crime
Secondary parties
Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861:
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence
shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.
This section makes three points of crucial importance to the law of accomplices:
1) There must be an offence committed by the principal. The significance of this is
that if the accused offers aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring to the
principal, but the principal does not go on to commit an offence then the
accused is not guilty as an accessory.
2) The accomplice is charged with the basic offence. For example, an accused will
be charged with murder, even though the allegation is that he has been an
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
The significance of this quotation is that it indicates that the words should be given their
normal meaning. This is all well and good, but abetting, procuring, and counselling are
not words in common usage and to give them a normal meaning is therefore not
straightforward. The second point is that Lord Widgery has made is that the four words are
to have distinct meanings. Again this is a little problematic; in particular, commentators
have struggled to find an independent meaning of the phrase to abet that is not covered by
aiding or counselling.
Clarkson, Keating & Cunningham say,
it is almost certain that no real conceptual distinction can be drawn between most
of the terms. Between them they embrace conduct which encourages or influences the
principal offender or helps him in the commission of the crime.
R v Clarkson and Carroll (1971)
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
accessory to robbery. However the defendant appealed the conviction as he said he didnt
know the precise details of the robbery.
Held -> The appeal was dismissed as the court said you do not need to know the precise
details of an offence, but just need to be aware of the type of offence taking place.
Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland (1979)
Sufficient if accessory knew that one of a series of possible offences would be committed.
Crime must be within contemplation of the accessory.
Point of Law ->
Details of Case ->
Held ->
Main principal offender known IRA member. Plan to blow up pub. M drove them to pub.
Bomb goes off. Charged with unlawful explosion. Maxell accessory. Convicted at trial.
Appeals on ground that he didnt know precise details or type of offence. HL dismiss appeal.
Widen further Bainbridge test. Maxwell didnt need to know actual offence, just needed to
know what range of offences it was. Admitted he knew they were terrorists, and that theyd
be doing something illegal.
R v Powell; R v English [1999]
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
BUT if the principal uses a different, but as deadly weapon, as the accessory
contemplated, then they can still be liable.
R v Uddin [1998]
Herring page 909
Point of Law -> If, after the production of an unforeseen weapon, the accessory continues
with attack, then they will be liable.
Details of Case -> Following a driving incident, six men attacked another man with bars and
poles including part of a snooker cue. Abdul Talib (one of the group) produced a flict knife
during the attack and fatally stabbed the victim. The only evidence that any of the group
knew about the knife was that of an eyewitness, who stated that someone had shouted stab
him. The stabber and Uddin were convicted of murder. Three of the other defendants were
convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was based on the judges direction to the jury about
the degree of knowledge required.
Held ->
Joint enterprise
Clarkson, Keating and Cunningham say,
Where two or more people embark on a joint unlawful enterprise, for example a burglary
or attack on someone, the law has long adopted the view that all the parties should be liable
for the direct and agreed consequences of that joint enterprise.
Rabea Ashraf
Parties to Crime
Reform
Law Commission Consultation Paper, Assisting and Encouraging Crime, Law Com C.P. No
131, 1993.
Law Commission Report, Inchoate Liability for Assisting and Encouraging Crime, Law
Com No. 300, Cm 6878, July 2006.
Sullivan, Inchoate Liability for Assisting and Encouraging Crime The Law Commission
Report [2006] Criminal Law Review 1047.
Law Commission Report, Participating in Crime, Law Com No. 305, Cm 7084, May 2007.
Law Commission Bill on Participating in Crime and commentary: available at:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc305.pdf