Criminal Law - Accomplice Liability and Attempts
Accomplice Liability / Secondary Participation - s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act
1861 / s.44 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980
Exam structure for problem questions involving accomplice liability:
1) Liability of principal offender (focus on crimes for principal offenders before
accomplices even if they’re mentioned after accomplices in the question info)
2) Defences available to principal offender
3) Liability of accomplice
4) Defences available to accomplice
5) Repeat per possible crime
Principal: the person who commits the AR of the criminal offence, co-principals if
more than 1 person commits offence together
Criminal liability of secondary parties:
- S.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (either way and indictable offences only)
- Whoever aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an
indictable offence will be tried as a principal offender
- S.44 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (similar provisions for summary offences)
AR:
- [Go straight to second AR element (aiding, abetting etc) if you’ve already
discussed PO’s AR] PO must commit the AR of the principle offence
- Where PO did not commit the AR of the crime, D cannot be guilty as an
accomplice
- Confirmed in R v Dias
- Facts:
- D charged as an accomplice to a charge of unlawful
dangerous act/constructive manslaughter
- V injected themselves with drug supplied by D and
died
- Issue:
- Could D be convicted as an accomplice as the
principal (V) had not committed an unlawful act (by
injecting themselves with drugs)?
- Held:
- NO - D not guilty as they could not be an accomplice
when V had not committed the AR of an offence (they
, had not committed an unlawful act by injecting
themselves with drugs)
- As long as the principal commits the AR of a crime, an accomplice
can still be guilty even if the principal is found not guilty of
committing a crime (due to lack of MR) - confirmed in R v Cogan and
Leak
- D (secondary participant) must assist or encourage - ‘aid, abet, counsel, or
procure’ - the commission of the offence
- Each word given its ordinary meaning which is different from the other - A-
G’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)
- Aid - give assistance
- Abet - give encouragement at the time of the offence
- Counsel - give encouragement before time of the offence
- Procure - help bring about the offence
- Aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring acts can be viewed as one series of
acts carried out in order to achieve the defendants’ plan (indicating intent),
unless D has effectively withdrawn - Thabo-Meli
- Some conflict in case law over whether mere presence at the scene of a
crime is enough to amount to the AR of being an accomplice
- Not enough in R v Clarkson
- Facts:
- Ds heard a woman being raped, entered room and
did nothing to stop offence
- Held:
- Not enough to show Ds were present when principals
committed the offence
- Prosecution had to prove Ds encouraged the offence
- Enough for accomplice liability where D has a duty/right to stop
criminal behaviour, and not doing so amounts to encouragement
- E.g. Tuck v Robson - breach of contractual duty
- Facts:
- Licensee of pub allowed customers to drink
after hours in breach of licence
- E.g. R v Russell and Russell - special relationships
- Facts:
- One parent failed to intervene to protect child
from abuse by the other
- Held:
Accomplice Liability / Secondary Participation - s.8 Accessories and Abettors Act
1861 / s.44 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980
Exam structure for problem questions involving accomplice liability:
1) Liability of principal offender (focus on crimes for principal offenders before
accomplices even if they’re mentioned after accomplices in the question info)
2) Defences available to principal offender
3) Liability of accomplice
4) Defences available to accomplice
5) Repeat per possible crime
Principal: the person who commits the AR of the criminal offence, co-principals if
more than 1 person commits offence together
Criminal liability of secondary parties:
- S.8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (either way and indictable offences only)
- Whoever aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an
indictable offence will be tried as a principal offender
- S.44 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (similar provisions for summary offences)
AR:
- [Go straight to second AR element (aiding, abetting etc) if you’ve already
discussed PO’s AR] PO must commit the AR of the principle offence
- Where PO did not commit the AR of the crime, D cannot be guilty as an
accomplice
- Confirmed in R v Dias
- Facts:
- D charged as an accomplice to a charge of unlawful
dangerous act/constructive manslaughter
- V injected themselves with drug supplied by D and
died
- Issue:
- Could D be convicted as an accomplice as the
principal (V) had not committed an unlawful act (by
injecting themselves with drugs)?
- Held:
- NO - D not guilty as they could not be an accomplice
when V had not committed the AR of an offence (they
, had not committed an unlawful act by injecting
themselves with drugs)
- As long as the principal commits the AR of a crime, an accomplice
can still be guilty even if the principal is found not guilty of
committing a crime (due to lack of MR) - confirmed in R v Cogan and
Leak
- D (secondary participant) must assist or encourage - ‘aid, abet, counsel, or
procure’ - the commission of the offence
- Each word given its ordinary meaning which is different from the other - A-
G’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)
- Aid - give assistance
- Abet - give encouragement at the time of the offence
- Counsel - give encouragement before time of the offence
- Procure - help bring about the offence
- Aiding/abetting/counselling/procuring acts can be viewed as one series of
acts carried out in order to achieve the defendants’ plan (indicating intent),
unless D has effectively withdrawn - Thabo-Meli
- Some conflict in case law over whether mere presence at the scene of a
crime is enough to amount to the AR of being an accomplice
- Not enough in R v Clarkson
- Facts:
- Ds heard a woman being raped, entered room and
did nothing to stop offence
- Held:
- Not enough to show Ds were present when principals
committed the offence
- Prosecution had to prove Ds encouraged the offence
- Enough for accomplice liability where D has a duty/right to stop
criminal behaviour, and not doing so amounts to encouragement
- E.g. Tuck v Robson - breach of contractual duty
- Facts:
- Licensee of pub allowed customers to drink
after hours in breach of licence
- E.g. R v Russell and Russell - special relationships
- Facts:
- One parent failed to intervene to protect child
from abuse by the other
- Held:
