Accessory Liability

A person who directly commits an offence is known as a principle offender, but sometimes there are others in the background who somehow facilitate the commission of an offence.

In today's article I shall briefly explore the concept of accessory liability. An accessory is the background figure who somehow facilitates the commission of an offence. Accessories are also known as secondary offenders.

Legislation:

The primary legislation pertaining to accessory liability is the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

Section 8 of this historic Act, states the following:

"Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender."

In simple terms this means that someone who abets (encourages) a burglary, for instance, can be convicted and punished as a burglar.

Indictable offence:

An indictable offence is one that can be tried on indictment (e.g. before a jury at the Crown Court). This includes all indictable only offences (e.g. robbery) as well as those that are triable either way (e.g. theft).

Actus reus:

In accordance with section 8, there are four different ways in which the actus reus of accessory liability can be satisfied - aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an indictable offence.

In order to be liable as an accessory, at least one of these actus reus elements must be present.

• Aiding:

Aiding means somehow physically helping or assisting the principle offender. This assistance happens either before or during the commission of the offence, but it does not include anything afterwards.

Aiding would include things like providing weapons or equipment needed to commit an offence; providing transport to the crime scene; providing information needed to commit an offence.

• Abetting:

Abetting means providing encouragement to the principle offender during the commission of an offence. This could be through words (e.g. "kick him") or gestures (e.g. pointing out something to steal).

• Counselling:

Counselling means somehow encouraging or instigating the offence prior to its commission.

The level of encouragement does not need to be very high. In R v Gianetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1 the defendant was found to have counselled the principle offender by saying "oh goody" when told of his plans to commit the offence.

• Procuring:

Procuring occurs where a secondary offender somehow lays the foundations of the offence before it takes place.

An example would be the secondary offender spiking a person's drink, with the intention that they then drive whilst over the prescribed limit.

Another would be the secondary offender leaving something valuable out on display, with the intention of enticing someone else into stealing it.

Mens rea:

This is potentially more complicated than the actus reus, so I provide a much simplified and abridged version.

In order to be liable as an accessory, two different mens rea elements must be present:

• A secondary offender must intentionally (or deliberately) commit the act that aided, abetted, counselled or procured the principle offender's commission of the offence (National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11).
• A secondary offender must have knowledge of the circumstances of the offence (Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544). This means they must have some awareness of the principle's intention to commit the offence (or an offence of the same type).

Lifeline Thrown to Isle of Wight Drug Driver in Breach of Community Order

Benevolent Magistrates have thrown a lifeline to an Isle of Wight drug driver in breach of his community order.

George Pipes, 33, of Quay Lane, Brading, admitted being in breach of the order when he appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Friday, 8th August 2025.

The order, which includes 120 hours' unpaid work and 30 days' rehabilitation activity requirement, was originally made on 6th October 2023, as a result of Pipes' conviction for driving whilst over the specified limit for BZE. It had already been extended from 12 months' to 24 months' to afford Pipes the opportunity of compliance.

Pipes crashed his tipper van whilst more than eleven-times the specified limit of the cocaine metabolite, yet told the court he had no idea at all how the drug had entered his body.

Addressing the court at the breach hearing, a representative of the National Probation Service said that the 33-year-old had demonstrated "wilful non-compliance" with the order. He had completed only four hours of unpaid work and attended only seven days' rehabilitation activity requirement.

Despite Pipes' abysmal level of compliance, probation asked the court to give him one more chance to complete his sentence.

Appearing unrepresented, Pipes told the court that he was a father of six and had "lots of debt", but acknowledged that was no excuse for his poor level of compliance.

Magistrates agreed to extend the order by a further 12 months.

The Presiding Justice said: "This is two years now. If there's another breach, you're looking at custody and that'll really mess up your life."

In cases where there is wilful and persistent non-compliance with a community order, the court's usual step is to revoke the order and replace it with a custodial sentence - irrespective of whether the original offence crossed the custody threshold or not.

Bladdered Cheshire Woman Failed to Provide Specimen

A "very intoxicated" Cheshire woman failed to provide a specimen of breath for analysis after managing to wrap her car around a lamppost.

Karen Marron, 60, of Rockfield Drive, Helsby, admitted failing to provide a specimen for analysis when she appeared recently at Chester Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail provide a specimen for analysis when required to do so. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 and/or 3 months' custody.

Magistrates heard that police were called to a single vehicle road traffic collision in Frodsham on Saturday, 26th July 2025. On arrival they found Marron sat in the driver's seat of the vehicle, which had collided with a lamppost.

Paramedics attended the scene and concluded that the 60-year-old was "very intoxicated", but did not require any medical attention.

Marron was arrested and conveyed to North Cheshire Custody Suite, where she was required to provide an evidential specimen of breath. She made an unsuccessful attempt to provide the first specimen, which resulted in the machine timing out and her telling the officer that she "didn't understand" the instructions.

The 60-year-old confirmed that she had no medical reason for failing to provide a specimen, which resulted in her being charged with the offence.

Richard Sibeon, mitigating, reiterated that his client had tried to blow into the maching, but her "anxiety and rapid breathing" had defeated the process.

"It wasn't a deliberate refusal, but she's not going down the route of pleading not guilty", said Mr Sibeon.

"She would have liked to have provided a sample or would have had blood taken, but it wasn't offered."

The court heard that Marron had no previous convictions.

Given the circumstances, Magistrates' were of the view that the matter could be resolved by way of a financial penalty.

Marron was fined £432 and ordered to pay £173 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

She was also disqualified from driving for a period of 24 months, but can reduce that by 24 weeks if she successfully completes the drink-drive rehabilitation course.

This articles leads nicely onto a comment I recently made on X: a drink drive suspect cannot delay a breath test by requesting to speak to a solicitor. This is because any delay will result in the depletion of alcohol in their body, so asking to speak to a solicitor could be used as a tactic by unscrupulous types to escape prosecution.

It should also be noted that a drink drive suspect does not have the right to choose to provide a specimen of blood or urine in place of breath. Breath is the standard method of obtaining a specimen. The police will only offer an alternative if the evidential breathalyser appears to be defective or the suspect appears to have some legitimate (e.g. medical) inability to provide a specimen of breath. The personal preference of the suspect doesn't come into it.

New Driver Begs Court for Disqualification

An unusual case from the archives today, with a newly qualified driver begging the court to impose a disqualification for his driving transgression.

The driver in question had passed his test only a few months before being caught driving without valid third party insurance. Given his limited driving experience, he was still subject to the two-year probationary period stipulated in the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. A newly qualified driver who accumulates 6 penalty points during the probationary period has their licence revoked by the DVLA and has to pass a retest in order to regain their substantive driving licence.

Driving without insurance is a very common offence. It is nearly always dealt with by way of a Band C fine and 6 penalty points. However, the relevant sentencing guideline, which the court is duty bound to follow unless it considers it unjust to do so, allows the imposition of a discretionary disqualification instead of penalty points in some circumstances.

The guideline, which can be viewed here, stipulates that offences of lower culpability and lesser harm (category 3 offences) should result in the imposition of 6-8 penalty points, whereas more serious offences (category 1 and 2 offences) can be dealt with by way of a discretionary disqualification or penalty points.

The way the legislation works, many newly qualified drivers consider it advantageous to have a short discretionary disqualification instead of 6 penalty points, because it means they do not need to pass a retest. The newly qualified driver in question, with the help of his solicitor, had everything worked out - "my client would ask you to consider a one week disqualification, because he can take a week's leave and it won't impact on his work".

It was good in theory, but didn't quite work out in practice because the bench thought it was only a category 3 offence - e.g. one that should attract 6-8 points instead of disqualification. In passing the new driver legislation, Parliament's obvious intention is to penalise those who offend during the probationary period. It would not be right to manipulate the sentencing process by deeming an offence more serious than it really was as some sort of crude workaround.

In accordance with the guidelines the newly qualified driver was handed a Band C fine and had his licence endorsed with 6 penalty points, which meant it would be revoked by the DVLA. Clearly frustrated he could be heard cursing the decision as he left the courtroom - he was obviously expecting the bench to sentence the offence at his convenience.

That's not how things work. The court decides the sentence; the defendants do not.