s.8 Aiders and Abettors Act 1861, s.44 Magistrates Court Act 1980
*accomplices cannot also be victims to the same crime (Tyrell - e.g. underage girl encourages her older boyfriend to have
sex with her
3 elements need to be satisfied:
1. The principal offence has to be committed
2. The defendant aided, abetted, counselled or procured the offence
3. The defendant had the required MR
Conditioned AR: principal offence has to be committed
• This must occur for a defendant to be charged with accomplice liability (Dias)
• Where the principal offender is acquitted, the accomplice may still be liable (Cogan and Leak)
• There is no need to prove a casual link between accomplices actions and the commission of an offence
(i.e. doesn’t matter if offence would have been committed anyways)
• Transferred malice offences can still make the accomplice liable (Gnago)
• Normally, if accomplice uses an innocent agent (e.g. instructing a child) it commit an offence - the
accomplice will be charged as the principal offender
◦ Does not apply to sexual offences (Bourne)
AR: aided, abetted, counselled or procured the offence
• Establish the type of assistance:
◦ Aid: to help during the principal offence
◦ Abet: to encourage during the principal offence
◦ Counsel: to encourage before the principal offence
◦ Procure: to help bring about the principal offence
• any act after the crime will not be an offence
• Procurement does not require knowledge of the principal offender (AG Reference no.1 1975)
• Assistance, encouragement can be in various forms:
◦ Holding a women down during a rape (Clarkson)
◦ Attending and cheering at an illegal performance (Wilcox v Jeffrey - jazz player)
◦ It can include a failure to act where there is a duty to so:
‣ A passenger in a car had a duty to prevent the driver from speeding (DuCros v Lambourne)
‣ A pub owner allowed their customers to drink after hours (Tuck v Robson)
‣ The failure of one parent to prevent abuse by the other parent was sufficient (Russel & Russel)
◦ Just being present at the crime scene is not the same as omission, and generally wont lead to
accomplice liability (Clarkson)
MR: had the required MR
1. Two part test:
A. Intention to assist, encourage or procured the principal offender
a. MR requirement applied even in crimes of strict liability (Callow v Tillstone)
B. Knowledge of circumstances - knowledge of the essential matters which constitute the offence
(Youden v Johnson)
a. Doesn’t matter if the defendant didn’t actually want the result of the principal offence, just needs
to knowledge of the circumstances (NCB v Gamble)
b. IF NOT, defendant can still be liable if...
A knows the type of PO does the agreed act but with Where two people set out to commit a crime and one
crime but not the a different MR to that intended person commits a second offence, the other may be
specific details by A. charged as an accomplice for a new crime.
(Bainbridge)
A is guilty as an accomplice to A must intend to assist or encourage the PO in the ‘new
A knows the offence the offence which matches A’s offence’.
will be in a limited MR, can be convicted of a more
range, e.g. ‘military serious offence if he Foresight of the new offence is to be treated as
operation’ (Maxwell) contemplated that (Howe) evidence of intent for jury to infer from. (Jogee)
NOTE: person can validly withdraw from a plan by orally saying so (Grundy), given that communication
is unequivocal, effective, and timely communication of withdrawal of intent
If person withdraws at the scene of the crime then words alone will not be sufficient (R v Becerra)
*accomplices cannot also be victims to the same crime (Tyrell - e.g. underage girl encourages her older boyfriend to have
sex with her
3 elements need to be satisfied:
1. The principal offence has to be committed
2. The defendant aided, abetted, counselled or procured the offence
3. The defendant had the required MR
Conditioned AR: principal offence has to be committed
• This must occur for a defendant to be charged with accomplice liability (Dias)
• Where the principal offender is acquitted, the accomplice may still be liable (Cogan and Leak)
• There is no need to prove a casual link between accomplices actions and the commission of an offence
(i.e. doesn’t matter if offence would have been committed anyways)
• Transferred malice offences can still make the accomplice liable (Gnago)
• Normally, if accomplice uses an innocent agent (e.g. instructing a child) it commit an offence - the
accomplice will be charged as the principal offender
◦ Does not apply to sexual offences (Bourne)
AR: aided, abetted, counselled or procured the offence
• Establish the type of assistance:
◦ Aid: to help during the principal offence
◦ Abet: to encourage during the principal offence
◦ Counsel: to encourage before the principal offence
◦ Procure: to help bring about the principal offence
• any act after the crime will not be an offence
• Procurement does not require knowledge of the principal offender (AG Reference no.1 1975)
• Assistance, encouragement can be in various forms:
◦ Holding a women down during a rape (Clarkson)
◦ Attending and cheering at an illegal performance (Wilcox v Jeffrey - jazz player)
◦ It can include a failure to act where there is a duty to so:
‣ A passenger in a car had a duty to prevent the driver from speeding (DuCros v Lambourne)
‣ A pub owner allowed their customers to drink after hours (Tuck v Robson)
‣ The failure of one parent to prevent abuse by the other parent was sufficient (Russel & Russel)
◦ Just being present at the crime scene is not the same as omission, and generally wont lead to
accomplice liability (Clarkson)
MR: had the required MR
1. Two part test:
A. Intention to assist, encourage or procured the principal offender
a. MR requirement applied even in crimes of strict liability (Callow v Tillstone)
B. Knowledge of circumstances - knowledge of the essential matters which constitute the offence
(Youden v Johnson)
a. Doesn’t matter if the defendant didn’t actually want the result of the principal offence, just needs
to knowledge of the circumstances (NCB v Gamble)
b. IF NOT, defendant can still be liable if...
A knows the type of PO does the agreed act but with Where two people set out to commit a crime and one
crime but not the a different MR to that intended person commits a second offence, the other may be
specific details by A. charged as an accomplice for a new crime.
(Bainbridge)
A is guilty as an accomplice to A must intend to assist or encourage the PO in the ‘new
A knows the offence the offence which matches A’s offence’.
will be in a limited MR, can be convicted of a more
range, e.g. ‘military serious offence if he Foresight of the new offence is to be treated as
operation’ (Maxwell) contemplated that (Howe) evidence of intent for jury to infer from. (Jogee)
NOTE: person can validly withdraw from a plan by orally saying so (Grundy), given that communication
is unequivocal, effective, and timely communication of withdrawal of intent
If person withdraws at the scene of the crime then words alone will not be sufficient (R v Becerra)
