aiding and abetting criminal uk?

Answer 1

Yeah? Get done for it, and rightly so.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

In AG's Reference (No 1 of 1975) (1975) QB 773, Widgery CJ stated that the words in s8 should be given their ordinary meaning.
The natural meaning of "to aid" is to "give help, support or assistance to" and it will generally although not necessarily take place at the scene of the crime. It is not necessary to prove that there was any agreement between the principal and the alleged accessory, nor is there a need to prove a causative link between the aid and the commission of the offence by the principal.
The natural meaning of "to abet" is "to incite, instigate or encourage" and this can only be committed by an accessory who is present when the crime is committed. This does imply either an express or implied agreement between the parties although there is no need to prove any causative link between what the abettor did and the committion of the offence.
"To counsel" is "to encourage" and most usually covers advice, information, encouragement or the supply of equipment before the commission of a crime. It implies agreement between the principal. In R v Clarkson (1971) 3 AER 344, the defendant merely watched while fellow soldiers raped a womanl in their barracks in Germany. Counselling or advising must have an effect on the mind of the principal to constitutue the necessary encouragement in fact so Clarkson was not guilty. No causative link between the counselling and the commission of the full offence is required so long as the offence actually committed was within the scope of the counselling. In R v Calhaem (1985) 2 AER 266, the defendant paid a private detective to murder a woman and was charged with counselling or procuring the murder. It was held that the offence actually committed must be within the scope of the counselling, i.e. the principal does not deliberately depart from the plan. The detective merely intended to frighten the woman but did actually hit her with a hammer. If, however, the accessory does not specify what offence to be committed, but leaves it to the principal to decide what offence is to be committed, the accessory will be liable.
"To procure" means to produce by endeavour, by setting out to see that it happens and taking the appropriate steps to produce that happening". The principal can be entirely "innocent" of the procurer's acts so long as there is proof of a causal link between the procuring and the commission of the offence by the principal offender, e.g. as in AG’s Reference (No 1) (1975) 2 AER 684, spiking a drink procures a drink-driving offence.
Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough, even where the defendant remains at the scene to watch the crime being committed. In R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534, where a crowd watched an illegal prize fight, it was held that there must be active, not mere passive, encouragement. Hence, even though the fight would not have taken place without spectators prepared to bet on the outcome, the spectators were acquitted because their presence was accidental. It would have been different if they had attended at the scene of a crime by prior agreement because their mere presence would be an encouragement. Similarly, in R v J.F.Alford Transport Ltd (1997) 2 Cr. App. R. 326 it was held a reasonable inference that a company, knowing that its employees are acting illegally and deliberately doing nothing to prevent it from being repeated, actually intends to encourage the repetition. This will be a natural inference in any situation where the alleged accessory has the right to control what the principal is doing.
A mens rea is required even when it is not required for the principal offender (for example, when the principal commits a strict liability offence). The defendant must intend to do the acts which he knows will assist or encourage the principal to commit a crime of a certain type. In R v Bainbridge (1960) 1 QB 129 the defendant supplied cutting equipment not knowing exactly what crime was going to be committed, but was convicted because the equipment supplied was used in the ordinary way but for a criminal purpose. The accomplice must also know of all the essential matters that make the act a crime, but need not know that the act would amount to a crime because ignorantia juris non excusat. In National Coal Board v Gamble (1959) 1 QB 11 the operator of a weighbridge was indifferent as to whether the principal committed the offence which is generally not a sufficient mens rea, but the NCB was convicted because the act of the employee was an act of sale.

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) AC 112 is an example of a type of case where the uncertainties of the precise meaning of intention effectively confer a sometimes welcome discretion on whether to impose responsibility. That case concerned the question of whether a doctor giving contraceptive advice or treatment to a girl under the age of 16 could be liable as an accessory to a subsequent offence of unlawful sexual intercourse committed by the girl's sexual partner. The Lords held that generally this would not be the case (the action was a civil one for a declaration) since the doctor would lack the necessary intention (even though he realised that his actions would facilitate the intercourse). One rationale for the decision would be that a jury would not infer intention in such circumstances if they thought that the doctor was acting in what he considered to be the girl's best interests.

Answer 4

The solutions betray an attempt to facet song the criminal moves of the Indian excursion handbook. the mum of the lady and her liberal moves are a secondary question. The assassin getting stuck and presented to Justice is the first and in effortless words important interest now.

Answer 5

Ncb V Gamble

Answer 6

Yep got prosecuted for aiding and abetting "speeding"

I had a learner driver who sped up at a set of lights as they changed. (I told him to slow down)

Stupid Law...... Picky Policeman......Stupid Judge........

(I ain't bitter) lol

Answer 7

Aiders and Abbettors act 1861,

ANy person who shal council, procure or incite any offence, shall on indictment be guilty o such an offence and be punishable by...

or something like that if i remember it right...spotter or what!

Answer 8

Not in Scotland. It's called "art and part" here.

Answer 9

Not a good idea

Answer 10

Yes, what do you want help with and how much will you pay me?