Lecture 16: Accessorial Liability
“The criminal justice system exists to control crime. A prime function of that system must be to deal
justly but effectively with those who join with others in criminal enterprises.”
- If X commits the actus and reus of a crime and Y helps X commit the crime, then Y will be
convicted of accessory or secondary party robbery under s.8 of Accessories and Abettors Act
1861
o “Assistance or encouragement”
The Accessories and Abettors act 1861:
- S.8 “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.”
o Secondary parties will be treated with the same offence as the principal party
o Prosecution must prove the Actus reus and Mens Rea element which are different
for the secondary party
Actus Reus and Mens Rea of a Secondary party:
- Actus Reus: D aids, abets, counsels or procures or acts in a common purpose in the
commission of an offence
o Attorney General’s Reference 1975: We approach the section on the basis … that if
four words are employed here, ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’, the probability is that
there is a difference between each of those four words and the other three,
because, if there were no such difference, then Parliament would be wasting time in
using four words where two or three would do. Thus, in deciding whether that
which is assumed to be done under our reference was a criminal offence we
approach the section on the footing that each word must be given its ordinary
meaning.
o All for terms have different meanings but have many similarities between them
▪ Aiding: helping to assist or supporting the principal offender
• DPP v Northern Ireland v Maxwell 1978: throwing a bomb into the
building- D2 drove the D to the premise
▪ Abetting: Encouraging or inciting the principal to commit the offence during
offence
▪ D has to be present at the scene of the principal offence
• Coney 1881: mere present of D is not sufficient- he must act in some
way
o Presence was no conclusive proof
• Clarkson v Carroll 1971: Soldiers were standing outside a room of
where an 18 years old girl was being raped- the door fell and the
soldiers fell in the room- appealed- there was no evidence that D
had done an act to encourage or verbally encourage the act
• Bland 1998: D conviction of her boyfriend’s possession of drugs-
quashed as D sharing a room is not sufficient for conviction
• Wilcox v Jeffery 1951: Wilcox was aware that Hawkins had entered
the country illegally-
o Instead of voicing it, he choose to attend the concert and
paid for the ticket which meant he was encouraging the act
by paying for the ticket
• Du Cros v Lambourne 1907: Court held that D could ought to
prevent X from acting- excessive and dangerous speed on a
motorbike
• Tuck v Robson 1970-
“The criminal justice system exists to control crime. A prime function of that system must be to deal
justly but effectively with those who join with others in criminal enterprises.”
- If X commits the actus and reus of a crime and Y helps X commit the crime, then Y will be
convicted of accessory or secondary party robbery under s.8 of Accessories and Abettors Act
1861
o “Assistance or encouragement”
The Accessories and Abettors act 1861:
- S.8 “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.”
o Secondary parties will be treated with the same offence as the principal party
o Prosecution must prove the Actus reus and Mens Rea element which are different
for the secondary party
Actus Reus and Mens Rea of a Secondary party:
- Actus Reus: D aids, abets, counsels or procures or acts in a common purpose in the
commission of an offence
o Attorney General’s Reference 1975: We approach the section on the basis … that if
four words are employed here, ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’, the probability is that
there is a difference between each of those four words and the other three,
because, if there were no such difference, then Parliament would be wasting time in
using four words where two or three would do. Thus, in deciding whether that
which is assumed to be done under our reference was a criminal offence we
approach the section on the footing that each word must be given its ordinary
meaning.
o All for terms have different meanings but have many similarities between them
▪ Aiding: helping to assist or supporting the principal offender
• DPP v Northern Ireland v Maxwell 1978: throwing a bomb into the
building- D2 drove the D to the premise
▪ Abetting: Encouraging or inciting the principal to commit the offence during
offence
▪ D has to be present at the scene of the principal offence
• Coney 1881: mere present of D is not sufficient- he must act in some
way
o Presence was no conclusive proof
• Clarkson v Carroll 1971: Soldiers were standing outside a room of
where an 18 years old girl was being raped- the door fell and the
soldiers fell in the room- appealed- there was no evidence that D
had done an act to encourage or verbally encourage the act
• Bland 1998: D conviction of her boyfriend’s possession of drugs-
quashed as D sharing a room is not sufficient for conviction
• Wilcox v Jeffery 1951: Wilcox was aware that Hawkins had entered
the country illegally-
o Instead of voicing it, he choose to attend the concert and
paid for the ticket which meant he was encouraging the act
by paying for the ticket
• Du Cros v Lambourne 1907: Court held that D could ought to
prevent X from acting- excessive and dangerous speed on a
motorbike
• Tuck v Robson 1970-
