You are on page 1of 5

1

Complicity
1. MODES OF PARTICIPATION

(a) As a joint principal (note the spelling!)

By coincidence, P and S simultaneously and independently attack V, who dies from the
cumulative effect of the blows. They are both principals in the murder of V.

(b) As principal through an innocent agent

R v Michael (1840) 9 C and P 356
What about R v Cogan & Leak [1976] QB 217?

(c) As an accessory

(i) Before 1861
Principals in the first degree; principals in the second degree; accessories before the fact;
accessories after the fact. Initially, separate treatment and separate convictions, but over
time, common law evolved in a piecemeal fashion to allow accessories to be tried and
sentenced as principals in some cases.

(ii) Under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s8
‘Whoseover shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence,
whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be
passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.’

(iii) Under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s44
The same rule is extended to summary offences as well.

R v Giannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1

(iv) Joint Enterprise Liability?

2. THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND CONVICTING ACCESSORIES

(a) Why hold accessories liable?

(b) What do you convict accessories of? Derivative liability – a starting point

R v Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231, [2004] 2 Cr App R 592
R v A, B, C and D [2010] EWCA Crim 1622, [2011] QB 841

(c) Accessory convicted of a more serious offence than the principal

R v Richards [1974] QB 776
R v Howe [1987] 2 WLR 568
Homicide Act 1957, s2(4)
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s54(8)

(d) Accessory convicted of a less serious offence than the principal

counsel or procure P's acts Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231 [para 42] (I) S must act intentionally + S must intend thereby to aid. ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY FOR AIDING.. ABETTING. COUNSELLING AND PROCURING (a) Actus Reus (i) ‘Whoseover shall  Aid.. abet. counsel or procure .’ Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 R v Stewart and Schofield [1995] 1 Cr App R 441 R v Perman [1996] 1 Cr App R 24 (e) Accessory convicted when principal is excused R v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125 (f) Can an accessory be convicted when the principal does not commit a crime? R v Cogan & Leak [1976] QB 217 R v Millward [1994] Crim LR 527 Thornton v Mitchell [1940] 1 All ER 339 R v Loukes [1996] 1 Cr App R 444 3. or  Procure. acting with whatever mental element the offence requires of D1…’ (para 90) (i) Intention to aid.  Abet. abet.  Counsel. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773 R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808 (ii) The threshold for liability R v Young and Webber (1838) 8 Car and P 644 R v Cuddy (1843) 1 Car & Kir 210 R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534 Wilcox v Jeffrey [1951] 1 All ER 464 R v Clarkson [1971] 3 All ER 344 R v Bland (1987) 151 JP 857 Tuck v Robson [1970] 1 All ER 1171 R v Webster [2006] EWCA Crim 415 (b) Mens Rea Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 ‘… [We must ask] whether the accessory intended to encourage or assist D1 to commit the crime.

’ (Devlin J) Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland [1975] AC 653 ‘If the car was driven in pursuance of a murderous plan and the accused knew that was the plan and intentionally drove the car in execution of the plan. s73 (III) We're also not concerned with recklessness as to this element Simester & Sullivan (6th Ed. His guilt springs from the fact that he contemplates the commission of one (or more) of a number of crimes by the principal and he intentionally lends his assistance in order that such crime will be committed. Carter v Richardson [1974] RTR 314 Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544 Blakely and Sutton v Chief Constable of West Mercia [1991] RTR 405 Callow v Tillstone (1900) 19 Cox CC 576 (I) One of a list of offences DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 3 All ER 1140 ‘The relevant crime must be within the contemplation of the accomplice and only exceptionally would evidence be found to support the allegation that the accomplice had given the principal a completely blank cheque.f. he may be indifferent whether the third man lives or dies and interested only in the cash profit to be made out of the sale..f. not motive NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 ‘If one man deliberately sells to another a gun to be used for murdering a third. a wholesaler.e.... Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231 c. 3 The facts of Derek William Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21 (II) Remember. but he can still be an aider and abettor. we're concerned with intention.’ (Lord Lowry CJ) Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 Compare with S v Robinson 1968 (1) SA 666 (II) Accidental and minor departures from the plan .' (ii) Knowledge or foresight that P’s acts will amount to an offence Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 But c.’ (Lord Morris) But see also Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112 Sexual Offences Act 2003. reckless) whether the goods are toy pistols or real guns. she is unsure (i. he could be held to have aided and abetted even though he regretted the plan or was horrified by it. 2016) pg 230 'Susan is an auctioneer of various goods. Susan knows that Peter does not have a license to deal in firearms. Because the goods are in bond. She sells an unlabelled box of goods to Peter.

or continued to participate in the joint enterprise after realising that crime B was being committed. and (iii) D2 had foreseen the possibility that he might do so. “Accessory liability and common unlawful purposes” (2017) 133 LQR 73 . Old law Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168 Powell and Daniels. 1961) § 124 Simester & Sullivan (6th Ed. Intention to encourage or assist Crime B was not necessary. as an incident of committing crime A. 4 Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827. ii. JOINT ENTERPRISE LIABILITY (…IS DEAD!) i. The law now Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 Simester.’ (Lord Phillips and Judge. English [1999] AC 1 Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827 ‘Parasitic accessory liability arises where (i) D1 and D2 have a common intention to commit crime A (ii) D1.. at [16] (Lords Phillips and Judge) Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 [Para 98] Yemoh [2009] EWCA Crim 930 (III) Deliberate departure to commit a fundamentally different crime Saunders and Archer (1575) 75 ER 706 ‘he who advises or commands an unlawful thing to be done shall be adjudged according to all that follows from that same thing.’ Anderson and Morris [1966] 2 QB 110 Perman [1996] 1 Cr App R 24 (I) Compare descriptions. not charges Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827 (II) Compare the conduct. Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. not the intention with which it is performed Rahman [2009] 1 AC 129 (III) Weapons and brutality of attack as evidence of a fundamentally different crime English [1999] 1 AC 1 Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 (iii) An exception for the performance of a duty? NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 Glanville Williams. 2016) pgs 231-235 4.. but not from any other distinct thing. at [42]) S was liable for P's deliberate commission of a fundamentally different crime B if she foresaw the possibility that crime B might be committed. commits crime B.

s3 (1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. POST-SCRIPT/REVIEW – GNANGO Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827 Public Order Act 1986. Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App Rep 279 Kennedy (No. 5 5. DEFENCES (a) Withdrawal Becerra (1976) 62 Cr App R 212 Rajakumar [2014] 1 Cr App R 12 c. 2) [2008] 1 AC 269 . it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1). at [52] (Lords Phillips and Judge) Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 6. Mitchell [2009] 1 Cr App R 31 Grundy [1977] Crim LR 543 Perman [1996] 1 Cr App R 24 (b) Victim as party to a crime Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710 Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827. (2) Where two or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence.f.