← The hardest concepts in United Kingdom law
In one breath
A person who intentionally assists or encourages another to commit a crime, knowing the essential facts, can be convicted of that crime as a secondary party. Since R v Jogee, foresight that the principal might commit a further crime is evidence from which intention to assist or encourage may be inferred, but it is not itself enough for guilt.
The picture
The backstage crew of a play
In a theatre the actor speaks the lines, but the play happens because the backstage crew built the set, cued the lights and prompted from the wings. A crew member who knowingly helps to put on the show shares in what the audience sees. Someone who happens to be in the building when a stagehand improvises a disaster, without having meant to help with it, is not part of the show. The test is whether they meant to help, knowing what the performance was.
Under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures an indictable offence is tried and punished as a principal. The conduct is some assistance or encouragement; mere presence is not enough unless it is intentional encouragement (R v Coney). The mental element is intention to assist or encourage the principal’s act, with knowledge of the essential matters (National Coal Board v Gamble). In a joint enterprise, if the principal commits a further or different crime, the secondary party is liable for it only if they intended to assist or encourage it, and intention may be conditional (R v Jogee).
Where the picture stops working
A crew is small, but accomplice liability reaches those who plan, supply the means or encourage, in roles of very different weight. Older cases that treated foresight alone as enough for murder no longer state the law, so a textbook’s date matters. For murder, the secondary party must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with intent to kill or cause really serious harm. Scots law uses the idea of art and part liability, with its own rules.
How it really works
- 1Identify the principal offender and confirm that the principal committed the offence.
- 2Ask whether the defendant assisted or encouraged it, by an act or words before or during the crime. Presence alone is not enough.
- 3Ask whether the defendant intended to assist or encourage the principal’s act, knowing the essential facts that made it a crime. The intention may be conditional, as in helping in case the occasion arises.
- 4Where the principal commits a different or more serious crime than the one agreed, ask whether the defendant intended to assist or encourage that crime. Foresight that it might be committed is evidence of such intention, not a substitute for it.
- 5For murder, ask whether the defendant intended to assist or encourage the principal to act with intent to kill or cause really serious harm.
Why people get it wrong
- Treating presence as participation. Standing by, even in silent approval, is not necessarily encouragement.
- Thinking that foresight of a risk is enough for guilt as an accomplice. After Jogee it is only evidence of intention.
- Assuming the accomplice must have done part of the physical act. Help, encouragement or supplying the means is enough.
- Relying on older cases about “parasitic accessory liability” as current law. The Supreme Court held that line of cases took a wrong turn, so check the authority.
A worked example
The facts are invented
Dee and Eli agree to rob a corner shop at night, and they agree only to threaten the shopkeeper with words. Eli keeps watch outside. He knows that Dee habitually carries a knife. Dee stabs and kills the shopkeeper.
Eli is guilty of the robbery as an accomplice. For the murder, the question is whether Eli intended to assist or encourage Dee to kill or cause really serious harm. The knife is evidence the jury may use, but foresight that Dee might use it is not the same thing. If the jury is sure that Eli meant Dee to use such violence if needed, he is guilty of murder. Otherwise he may still face a charge of manslaughter.
Try it
Two men agree to burgle a house. One of them, without prior discussion, attacks and kills the householder while the other is upstairs. The second man knew that the first sometimes carried a weapon. Is the second man guilty of murder merely because he foresaw that the first might use violence?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- R v Coney, (1882) 8 QBD 534
- Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, section 8
- National Coal Board v Gamble, [1959] 1 QB 11
- R v Jogee, [2016] UKSC 8
Where to go next
Courses
Dictionary
More hard concepts in United Kingdom law
- Oblique intention and the Woollin direction (Criminal law)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. The United Kingdom has three legal systems: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These pages mostly describe the law of England and Wales and say where Scots law differs when it clearly does; Northern Ireland law is often similar to English law but is not covered separately. Parliament is sovereign, but the devolved legislatures also make law within their powers. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions; check the primary sources before relying on any rule.