Parties- accessories, accomplices, secondary liability.
Law criminalises accomplices because one person’s AR and MR can cause another to have
AR because of original person.
S8 accessories and abettors act 1861:
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.
S44(1) magistrates court act 1980:
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a
SUMMARY offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is
charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a
court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him.
Make sure it really is a party’s issue.
Requirements:
1. Defendant 1 successfully commits principal offence. AR+ MR.
2. Defendant 2 provided one or more of aid, abetment, counsel, or procurement in
relation to defendant 1’s principal offence.
3. Defendant 2 had ‘inward’ mens rea.
4. Defendant 2 had ‘outward’ mens rea.
5. No withdrawal.
D1 successfully commits principal offence:
Secondary liability depends upon the principal offender being successful. You cand
aid or abet etc something which didn’t happen. Serious crim act 2007 may apply in
such a case instead.
Exception for some DEFENCE cases- d2 can still be liable if d1 has a defence of
duress. Not where defence operates to make d’s actions lawful (self-defence/consent
etc) as this means the AR isn’t present.
Exception where d1 lacks MR, provided ds has MR of procuring instead.
Milward [1994]- telling innocent employee, d1, to drive vehicle that d2 knew was an
unsafe condition.
Aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring:
Aid- any act of assistance before or at time of offence. Can be minor assistance. Ne need to
have made a decisive difference to the outcome.
Abetting- encouraging.
Counselling- advice or soliciting rather than basic encouragement.
Procuring- to produce by endeavour. Causal connection required. D1 wouldn’t have
committed offence without d2’s conduct.
Assisting, encouraging or causing d1 to commit the offence.
Inward mens rea:
Law criminalises accomplices because one person’s AR and MR can cause another to have
AR because of original person.
S8 accessories and abettors act 1861:
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.
S44(1) magistrates court act 1980:
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a
SUMMARY offence shall be guilty of the like offence and may be tried (whether or not he is
charged as a principal) either by a court having jurisdiction to try that other person or by a
court having by virtue of his own offence jurisdiction to try him.
Make sure it really is a party’s issue.
Requirements:
1. Defendant 1 successfully commits principal offence. AR+ MR.
2. Defendant 2 provided one or more of aid, abetment, counsel, or procurement in
relation to defendant 1’s principal offence.
3. Defendant 2 had ‘inward’ mens rea.
4. Defendant 2 had ‘outward’ mens rea.
5. No withdrawal.
D1 successfully commits principal offence:
Secondary liability depends upon the principal offender being successful. You cand
aid or abet etc something which didn’t happen. Serious crim act 2007 may apply in
such a case instead.
Exception for some DEFENCE cases- d2 can still be liable if d1 has a defence of
duress. Not where defence operates to make d’s actions lawful (self-defence/consent
etc) as this means the AR isn’t present.
Exception where d1 lacks MR, provided ds has MR of procuring instead.
Milward [1994]- telling innocent employee, d1, to drive vehicle that d2 knew was an
unsafe condition.
Aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring:
Aid- any act of assistance before or at time of offence. Can be minor assistance. Ne need to
have made a decisive difference to the outcome.
Abetting- encouraging.
Counselling- advice or soliciting rather than basic encouragement.
Procuring- to produce by endeavour. Causal connection required. D1 wouldn’t have
committed offence without d2’s conduct.
Assisting, encouraging or causing d1 to commit the offence.
Inward mens rea:
