How do you distinguish a joint principal from a person merely assisting?

Question

is there a test for distinguishing??

Forgot to add that I'm asking about English (U.K.) law.

Where I got confused was the part where they say that
'a principal is the person who is directly responsible for the actus reus and possesses the relevant mens rea',
and the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 did not help me :( lol

So just was wondering if there's a test used for distinguishing....

Or am I wrong in putting the emphasis on 'directly responsible' and 'possessing the relevant mens rea'???

Answer 1

No your not wrong.A joint principal does not aid and abet but actually commits the offence by taking an active part knowingly as in three men robbing a bank togeather ,all are joint principals.Someone who helps get rid of the getaway car when asked afterwards and having no part of the robbery would aid and abet.

Answer 2

These are not terms with which I am familiar, but it is probably similar to California law. A person who aids and abets a crime, which is that he helps the person to actually commit with crime, is a principle in the crime, and faces the same charges as the actor. However, a person who helps someone AFTER a crime is committed (in California, a felony), either by helping him escape, or avoid arrest, etc., is an accessory. The punishment for accessory can be far less than for a principle.

Answer 3

joint principle is one who commits the crime whilst the abettor either covers for them or assist with the get away of the principle rather than commit the inital offence

Answer 4

Principal=haveing the means "to do"right or wrong.
To assist=to help"Abeit"i;e-help along,the Principal "to do"

Answer 5

Prosecutors basically make things up as they go. It is usually difficult to figure out how they do it.