Stephen Lawrence murder was an example of secondary participation
In 2012 2 men were convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, neither
actually stabbed Stephen Lawrence
‘The evidence does not prove so that I could be sure that either of you had a
knife, but the person who used it did so with your knowledge and approval...I
take the view that, in circumstances, it does not matter that the knife was not
in your hands’
Can all have the same offence charged even if only 1 person actually did the
AR
They weren’t the principle offender but they are still liable for the same level
of offence
Definitions and Terminology:
The principal commits the offence, the secondary assists
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, S8
‘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’
There is a similar provision for summary offences
Secondary Offences:
‘Where a criminal offence is committed by two or more persons, each of them may
play a different part, but if they are in it together as part of a joint plan or agreement
to commit it, they are each guilty. The words ‘plan’ and ‘agreement’ do not mean that
there has to be any formality about it. An agreement may arise on the spur of the
moment. Nothing need be said at all. It can be made with a nod and a wink, or a
knowing look. An agreement can be inferred from the behaviour of the parties.’
Judicial Studies Board’s Specimen Direction on Joint Responsibility
Grundy [1989] Crim LR 502 (CA):
2 accused beating an officer on the stairs of a restaurant
Another joined in after a few seconds
The constable suffered a broken nose etc
The person who joined in was accused of ‘aiding’
He joined in after the broken nose so could only be charged with what happened
after that
He was an accessory or secondary offender to the injuries other than the broken
nose
A ‘principal’ is someone who commits or contributes to the AR
A ‘secondary’ encourages or helps the principle
There are some exceptions to this principle
General Principles:
The secondary is only liable if the principal committed the offence with the full AR
and MR
, No principal offender needs to be identified, however…
This is called derivative justice
Modern law is moving away from this form of liability (Howe [1987] AC 417)
Abbot [1955] 2 QB 497
Lord Goddard CJ noted the following problems with persons being jointly
charged
‘If two people are jointly indicted for the commission of a crime and the
evidence does not point to one rather than the other, and there is no evidence
that they were acting in concert, the jury ought to return a non-guilty verdict in
the case of both because the prosecution have not proved the case’
Aston (1991) 94 Cr App 180:
This case illustrated the problem that Lord Goddard CJ was referring to
Manslaughter convictions were quashed because it was not clear who caused the
harm
It could not be proven:
Who committed the offence
Whether they were acting in concert
Whether they had expressly or tacitly agreed to commit the offence or:
That either had encouraged it
Shows they are beginning to move away from the old law
Collins [1998] Crim LR 247 (DC):
Either of the defendants could have disconnected the meter from the electricity
supply
‘Where 2 people are jointly indicted and the evidence did not point to one rather than
the other, they both ought to be acquitted because the prosecution had not proved its
case’
So, if the prosecution can prove that one is guilty, but not which one, neither can be
found guilty
More General Principles:
Principal and secondary are subject to the same penalty, but sentence may vary to
reflect the participation
For example: the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 makes disqualification mandatory
for principals, but discretionary for secondaries
Craig and Bentley (1952) The Times
The principal was underage and so could not be hanged
The accessory was of age, and so was hanged (he received a posthumous
pardon in 1998)
Jefferson (textbook) argues that perhaps accessories should not be as punishable as
principals, due to less culpability
There is nowadays very little distinction between principals and accessories
‘The law no longer concerns itself with niceties of degrees of participation in crime’
(Cogan and Leek [1976] QB 217)
Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure:
In 2012 2 men were convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, neither
actually stabbed Stephen Lawrence
‘The evidence does not prove so that I could be sure that either of you had a
knife, but the person who used it did so with your knowledge and approval...I
take the view that, in circumstances, it does not matter that the knife was not
in your hands’
Can all have the same offence charged even if only 1 person actually did the
AR
They weren’t the principle offender but they are still liable for the same level
of offence
Definitions and Terminology:
The principal commits the offence, the secondary assists
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, S8
‘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’
There is a similar provision for summary offences
Secondary Offences:
‘Where a criminal offence is committed by two or more persons, each of them may
play a different part, but if they are in it together as part of a joint plan or agreement
to commit it, they are each guilty. The words ‘plan’ and ‘agreement’ do not mean that
there has to be any formality about it. An agreement may arise on the spur of the
moment. Nothing need be said at all. It can be made with a nod and a wink, or a
knowing look. An agreement can be inferred from the behaviour of the parties.’
Judicial Studies Board’s Specimen Direction on Joint Responsibility
Grundy [1989] Crim LR 502 (CA):
2 accused beating an officer on the stairs of a restaurant
Another joined in after a few seconds
The constable suffered a broken nose etc
The person who joined in was accused of ‘aiding’
He joined in after the broken nose so could only be charged with what happened
after that
He was an accessory or secondary offender to the injuries other than the broken
nose
A ‘principal’ is someone who commits or contributes to the AR
A ‘secondary’ encourages or helps the principle
There are some exceptions to this principle
General Principles:
The secondary is only liable if the principal committed the offence with the full AR
and MR
, No principal offender needs to be identified, however…
This is called derivative justice
Modern law is moving away from this form of liability (Howe [1987] AC 417)
Abbot [1955] 2 QB 497
Lord Goddard CJ noted the following problems with persons being jointly
charged
‘If two people are jointly indicted for the commission of a crime and the
evidence does not point to one rather than the other, and there is no evidence
that they were acting in concert, the jury ought to return a non-guilty verdict in
the case of both because the prosecution have not proved the case’
Aston (1991) 94 Cr App 180:
This case illustrated the problem that Lord Goddard CJ was referring to
Manslaughter convictions were quashed because it was not clear who caused the
harm
It could not be proven:
Who committed the offence
Whether they were acting in concert
Whether they had expressly or tacitly agreed to commit the offence or:
That either had encouraged it
Shows they are beginning to move away from the old law
Collins [1998] Crim LR 247 (DC):
Either of the defendants could have disconnected the meter from the electricity
supply
‘Where 2 people are jointly indicted and the evidence did not point to one rather than
the other, they both ought to be acquitted because the prosecution had not proved its
case’
So, if the prosecution can prove that one is guilty, but not which one, neither can be
found guilty
More General Principles:
Principal and secondary are subject to the same penalty, but sentence may vary to
reflect the participation
For example: the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 makes disqualification mandatory
for principals, but discretionary for secondaries
Craig and Bentley (1952) The Times
The principal was underage and so could not be hanged
The accessory was of age, and so was hanged (he received a posthumous
pardon in 1998)
Jefferson (textbook) argues that perhaps accessories should not be as punishable as
principals, due to less culpability
There is nowadays very little distinction between principals and accessories
‘The law no longer concerns itself with niceties of degrees of participation in crime’
(Cogan and Leek [1976] QB 217)
Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure:
