Parties to Crime Cases

Question 1

• Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) 2 All ER 684

Answer 1

o Key Principle: Defines the terms used to describe the actus reus of accessory liability, namely ‘aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring’. It highlights that while these terms are closely related, they have slightly different meanings.
o Context: This case involved the defendant inserting alcohol into someone’s drink without their knowledge. The person then drove home and was charged with driving under the influence.
o Outcome: The court held the defendant guilty of procuring the offence, illustrating that procuring involves setting out to see that something happens and taking appropriate steps to produce that happening.

Question 2

• R v Clarkson and others 1 WLR 1405

Answer 2

o Key Principle: Establishes the principle that mere presence at the scene of the offence does not automatically render a person liable as an accessory.
o Context: The defendants merely stood and watched a gang rape.
o Outcome: They were held not guilty of abetting because their presence alone, without evidence of providing encouragement, was insufficient. However, the sources note that mere presence can constitute abetting where it provides encouragement in fact and the person intends to provide encouragement.

Question 3

• R v Webster EWCA Crim 415

Answer 3

o Key Principle: Demonstrates liability for abetting by omission. This occurs where a party has knowledge of the principal’s actions and a duty or right to control them, but deliberately chooses not to act.
o Context: The defendant was a passenger in his own car driven by someone who was drunk. He did nothing to stop the driver or caution them.
o Outcome: The defendant was convicted of abetting the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Question 4

• Johnson v Youden and others

Answer 4

o Key Principle: Clarifies the mens rea requirement of knowledge for secondary parties. An accessory must have knowledge of the circumstances which constitute the offence.
o Context: The quote from this case states that before someone can be convicted of aiding and abetting, they must at least know the essential matters that make up that offence.
o Outcome: It is not enough to know the principal was going to do some illegal act; the accessory needs to know the specific kind of offence intended, although knowledge of all the details or the precise crime is not required.

Question 5

• Walters v Lunt (1951) and DPP v K and B (1997)

Answer 5

o Key Principle: Illustrates the concept of the innocent agent and its consequence for adult liability when an infant is involved. An infant (below 10 years old) cannot be found guilty of any offence due to an irrebuttable presumption.
o Context: In Walters v Lunt, parents were acquitted of receiving stolen property from their son because the son, being under 10, could not be found guilty of theft; thus, there was no principal offender to be an accessory to. In DPP v K and B, an adult who instigated an offence committed by an infant was charged as the principal.
o Outcome: When an adult uses an innocent agent (like a child under 10 or someone lacking mens rea/capacity) to commit a crime, the adult is charged as the principal offender, not as an accessory.