COMPLICITY
Referred to sometimes as ‘accomplice liability’ ‘parties to the crime’ ‘accessorial
liability’ ‘secondary parties’
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8:
“Whoever 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”
Terminology->
▪ Principal offence – this refers to the offence that D is aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring
(also referred to as the ‘substantive offence’, ‘full offence’, ‘future offence’)
▪ Principal offender (P) – the party who commits the actus reus with required mens rea
▪ Joint-principal – Multiple Ds complete the AR with required MR
▪ Principal via innocent agency – AR committed by uninformed third party (X) – D remains
liable as principal
▪ Accomplice – D does not complete AR of offence, but aids/abets/counsels/procures P to, and
P does complete AR (with MR)
- Uncertainty as to whether D is a principal or accomplice
Gnango 2011 -> 2 men in gunfight – Gnango and Bandana man, Bandana man aims to shoot
Gnango, but misses and shoots and kills innocent V, Bandana man is the principal offender (P) and
guilty of murder = Is D (Gnango) liable for murder too?
SC judgment (7 judge panel) ->
1. D = an accomplice (Phillips, Judge and Wilson)
2. D = principal offender (Clark)
3. D = joint principal (Brown, Clark, Dyson)
Lord Kerr: (dissenting)
Overall decision: D liable for murder … but on what grounds?!?!
Smith and Hogan 2017 -> Gnango (D) does not shoot V himself, Bandana man’s (P) shots are not
caused by Gnango (D) – they are P’s free and voluntary acts, D does not commit the AR for murder
so cannot be a principal offender or a co-principal/joint-principal
The principal offender commits the AR of the crime
Factual difficulties: principal or accomplice?
▪ D’s role in the principal offence is unclear
D1 and D2 both there – V dies – dispute about D2’s involvement
Gianetto [1997] as long as jury sure D2 either killed V himself as a principal or D2 encouraged
killing by D1 (was an accessory) can convict of murder
▪ Evidence places D at the scene, but it cannot be proven that D either committed as a
principal or an accomplice
D must be acquitted – even if case for all parties present (even though someone must have done it)
1) Actus Reus
Referred to sometimes as ‘accomplice liability’ ‘parties to the crime’ ‘accessorial
liability’ ‘secondary parties’
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8:
“Whoever 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”
Terminology->
▪ Principal offence – this refers to the offence that D is aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring
(also referred to as the ‘substantive offence’, ‘full offence’, ‘future offence’)
▪ Principal offender (P) – the party who commits the actus reus with required mens rea
▪ Joint-principal – Multiple Ds complete the AR with required MR
▪ Principal via innocent agency – AR committed by uninformed third party (X) – D remains
liable as principal
▪ Accomplice – D does not complete AR of offence, but aids/abets/counsels/procures P to, and
P does complete AR (with MR)
- Uncertainty as to whether D is a principal or accomplice
Gnango 2011 -> 2 men in gunfight – Gnango and Bandana man, Bandana man aims to shoot
Gnango, but misses and shoots and kills innocent V, Bandana man is the principal offender (P) and
guilty of murder = Is D (Gnango) liable for murder too?
SC judgment (7 judge panel) ->
1. D = an accomplice (Phillips, Judge and Wilson)
2. D = principal offender (Clark)
3. D = joint principal (Brown, Clark, Dyson)
Lord Kerr: (dissenting)
Overall decision: D liable for murder … but on what grounds?!?!
Smith and Hogan 2017 -> Gnango (D) does not shoot V himself, Bandana man’s (P) shots are not
caused by Gnango (D) – they are P’s free and voluntary acts, D does not commit the AR for murder
so cannot be a principal offender or a co-principal/joint-principal
The principal offender commits the AR of the crime
Factual difficulties: principal or accomplice?
▪ D’s role in the principal offence is unclear
D1 and D2 both there – V dies – dispute about D2’s involvement
Gianetto [1997] as long as jury sure D2 either killed V himself as a principal or D2 encouraged
killing by D1 (was an accessory) can convict of murder
▪ Evidence places D at the scene, but it cannot be proven that D either committed as a
principal or an accomplice
D must be acquitted – even if case for all parties present (even though someone must have done it)
1) Actus Reus
