Criminal law accessorial liability
- AID IS TO ASSIST/HELP/SUPPORT
- ABET IS TO INSTIGATE/ENCOURAGE
- COUNSEL IS TO ADVISE
- PROCURE IS TO OBTAIN/ACQUIRE AND GET SOMETHING WITH EFFORT
‘AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURES OR ACT IN A COMMON PURPOSE IN THE COMMISSION
OF AN OFFENCE’
AG REFERENCE CASE WHERE D2 PUT ALCOHOLIC IN D1 DRINK KNOWING HE WILL DRIVE
HOME. D1 CHARGED WITH DRUNK DRIVING AND D2 AS ACCOMPLICE. D2 ARGUED HE DID
NOT DRINK OR WAS NOT DRIVING BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THERE, AS LONG AS HE
AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURE AND HE PROCURE WHEN HE TRIED TO PUT ALCOHOL IN
HIS DRINK BEFORE HE DROVE
‘INTENTION TO AID, ABET, COUNSEL AND PROCURE’
NATIONAL COAL BOARD V GAMBLE CASE WHERE ALLOWING THE OVERLOADED LORRY
ONTO THE ROAD WHICH IS ILLEGAL SHOWED THEY HAD INTENTION TO AID THE PRINCIPLE
OFFENCE. MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT
‘KNOWLEDGE OF ANY EXISTING FACTS THAT MAKE THE ACT CRIMINAL’
JS V ALFORD TRANSPORT CASE INVOLVED TRUCK DRIVERS MAKING FALSE TACHOGRAPH
RECORDS. OMISSION CAN AMOUNT TO AID, ABET, COUNSEL AND PROCURE WHERE THE D
HAD CONTROL OVER THE PRINCIPLE AND HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENCE.
‘HOW FAR DOES D2 NEED TO GO’
COREY CASE WHERE MERE PRESENCE AT SCENE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. JURY NEEDS TO
KNOW WHY THEY ARE THERE AND WHY THEY ARE STAYING. CASE INVOLVED A
RELATIONSHIP HAVING ILLEGAL FIGHTS AND SPECTATORS PRESENT ARE NOT
ACCOMPLICES.
BLAND CASE WHERE D2 WAS AWARE OF D2 SELLING DRUGS WHO HE SHARED A FLAT
WITH. JUST SHARING A FLAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO AMOUNT TO AN ACCOMPLICE, HAS TO BE
ENCOURAGE/ASSIST.
BAINBRIDGE CASE WHERE D2 SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT TO D1 WHO USED IT TO BREAK INTO
A SAFE IN A BANK, D2 DID NOT KNOW WHAT D1 WOULD USE IF FOR SO NOT ACCOMPLICE.
HAS TO BE KNOWLEDGE IT WOULD BE USED IN A CRIME.
MAXWELL V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION FOR N IRELAND WHERE D2 TOOK PART
IN A MILITARY MISSION INVOLVING GUNS/MACHINERY AND HE ALSO KNEW HOW IT WOULD
TAKE PLACE SO ENOUGH ACTIVE KNOWLEDGE TO AMOUNT TO AN ACCOMPLICE.
OTHER..
COLLINSON CASE WHERE D2 MUST HAVE COMMON PURPOSE WITH D1 RELATED TO THE
ILLEGAL ACT TO BE GUILTY.
SPRAGGETT CASE WHERE VIOLENCE IS INVOLVED, D2 MUST ALSO SHARE INTENTION TO
USE VIOLENCE. 3 MEN PLANNED BURGLARY AND THIRD PERSON WAITED OUTSIDE WHILE 2
- AID IS TO ASSIST/HELP/SUPPORT
- ABET IS TO INSTIGATE/ENCOURAGE
- COUNSEL IS TO ADVISE
- PROCURE IS TO OBTAIN/ACQUIRE AND GET SOMETHING WITH EFFORT
‘AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURES OR ACT IN A COMMON PURPOSE IN THE COMMISSION
OF AN OFFENCE’
AG REFERENCE CASE WHERE D2 PUT ALCOHOLIC IN D1 DRINK KNOWING HE WILL DRIVE
HOME. D1 CHARGED WITH DRUNK DRIVING AND D2 AS ACCOMPLICE. D2 ARGUED HE DID
NOT DRINK OR WAS NOT DRIVING BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THERE, AS LONG AS HE
AID, ABET, COUNSEL OR PROCURE AND HE PROCURE WHEN HE TRIED TO PUT ALCOHOL IN
HIS DRINK BEFORE HE DROVE
‘INTENTION TO AID, ABET, COUNSEL AND PROCURE’
NATIONAL COAL BOARD V GAMBLE CASE WHERE ALLOWING THE OVERLOADED LORRY
ONTO THE ROAD WHICH IS ILLEGAL SHOWED THEY HAD INTENTION TO AID THE PRINCIPLE
OFFENCE. MOTIVE IS IRRELEVANT
‘KNOWLEDGE OF ANY EXISTING FACTS THAT MAKE THE ACT CRIMINAL’
JS V ALFORD TRANSPORT CASE INVOLVED TRUCK DRIVERS MAKING FALSE TACHOGRAPH
RECORDS. OMISSION CAN AMOUNT TO AID, ABET, COUNSEL AND PROCURE WHERE THE D
HAD CONTROL OVER THE PRINCIPLE AND HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENCE.
‘HOW FAR DOES D2 NEED TO GO’
COREY CASE WHERE MERE PRESENCE AT SCENE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. JURY NEEDS TO
KNOW WHY THEY ARE THERE AND WHY THEY ARE STAYING. CASE INVOLVED A
RELATIONSHIP HAVING ILLEGAL FIGHTS AND SPECTATORS PRESENT ARE NOT
ACCOMPLICES.
BLAND CASE WHERE D2 WAS AWARE OF D2 SELLING DRUGS WHO HE SHARED A FLAT
WITH. JUST SHARING A FLAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO AMOUNT TO AN ACCOMPLICE, HAS TO BE
ENCOURAGE/ASSIST.
BAINBRIDGE CASE WHERE D2 SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT TO D1 WHO USED IT TO BREAK INTO
A SAFE IN A BANK, D2 DID NOT KNOW WHAT D1 WOULD USE IF FOR SO NOT ACCOMPLICE.
HAS TO BE KNOWLEDGE IT WOULD BE USED IN A CRIME.
MAXWELL V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION FOR N IRELAND WHERE D2 TOOK PART
IN A MILITARY MISSION INVOLVING GUNS/MACHINERY AND HE ALSO KNEW HOW IT WOULD
TAKE PLACE SO ENOUGH ACTIVE KNOWLEDGE TO AMOUNT TO AN ACCOMPLICE.
OTHER..
COLLINSON CASE WHERE D2 MUST HAVE COMMON PURPOSE WITH D1 RELATED TO THE
ILLEGAL ACT TO BE GUILTY.
SPRAGGETT CASE WHERE VIOLENCE IS INVOLVED, D2 MUST ALSO SHARE INTENTION TO
USE VIOLENCE. 3 MEN PLANNED BURGLARY AND THIRD PERSON WAITED OUTSIDE WHILE 2
