1. Conspiracy, Aiding &
Abetting, Joint Enterprise
General overview

2. Overview
The law has three main weapons against group
offences: conspiracy, aiding & abetting, and joint
enterprise.
They often overlap.
What's the legal framework around each concept?
What are the similarities and differences?

3. Overview
Aiding &
abetting
Joint
enterprise
Conspiracy
Help, encourage
etc.
Gang attacks
etc.
Group planning
& agreement.

4. Objectives
By the end of this session, all learners will:
1) Be able to distinguish between aiding & abetting,
joint enterprise, and conspiracy.
2) Be able to apply these concepts to case studies.

5. Conspiracy
At least two people form an agreement to commit a
crime.
Section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

6. Conspiracy
You cannot be guilty of conspiracy if you are:
a) Husband and wife.
b) Under the age of consent.
c) The intended victim of the crime.
Section 2(2) Criminal Law Act 1977

7. Wheel Conspiracy
D2
D1
X
D6
D5
D3
D4

8. Chain Conspiracy
D1
D2
D3
D4

9. Conspiracy - Key Principle
R v Meyrick (1929): All that matters is that there is a
criminal purpose held in common between them.

10. Conspiracy - Intention to
Participate?
R v Siracusa (1989): It is not necessary to prove an
intention to take part in the criminal offence. You can
be a silent partner in the conspiracy.

11. Conspiracy - Mens Rea
Section 1(2) Criminal Law Act 1977
You must know that you are agreeing to a criminal
act.
Suspecting that it might be a criminal act is not
enough.
R v Saik (2006): D owned a bureau de change and
suspected that the money he was converting was
stolen. He was not guilty of conspiracy because he did
not know for a fact that it was stolen.

12. Aiding & Abetting
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, section 8:
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure any
offence...shall be liable to be tried, indicted and
punished as a principal offender.

13. Aiding & Abetting - Definitions
Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975):
The words "aid, abet, counsel and procure" shall be given
their ordinary meaning.
Aid - Help and assistance.
Abet - Encouragement, generally during the crime.
Counsel - Encouragement, generally before the crime.
Procure - To "produce by endeavour".

14. Aiding and Abetting - Examples
Aiding: providing a gun, acting as a lookout, being the
driver.
Abetting: Shouting words of encouragement during an
assault or battery.
Counseling: Giving a pep talk before the offence.
Procuring: Slipping vodka into someone's Coca Cola,
causing them to drink drive.

15. Aiding & Abetting - Actus Reus
R v Clarkson (1971): Two soldiers walked in on a
fellow soldier who was raping a woman. They stood
and watched.
Found not guilty because their mere presence was
not enough to actually aid, abet, or counsel.

16. Aiding & Abetting - Actus Reus
Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975)
P must be aware that he is acting with the
authority or encouragement of D.
If I give you a knife and persuade you to use it to
kill Jeff, and you use it to kill Sarah, I am not guilty
of aiding & abetting Sarah's murder.

17. Procuring
A little different to the other offences.
Attorney General's Reference (no. 1 of 1975)
D spiked P's drink and cause him to drink drive.
He wanted to see P drink drive and he took steps to
bring it about.
Implies causation - you must be the cause of P's
criminal act.

18. Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea
1) Intention or belief that the act will encourage or
assist or - in the case of procuring - bring the offence
about.
2) Knowledge of the type of crime that P is likely to
commit, along with the type of mens rea that P is
likely to have.

19. Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea
Lynch v DPP for Northern Ireland
D drove P to a spot where he was going to commit
murder.
D was horrified, and hoped that the murder would
not go ahead as planned.
GUILTY - He intended his driving to assist, and he
knew they type of crime that P was likely to commit.

20. Aiding & Abetting - Mens Rea
R v Bainbridge (1959)
D purchased some oxygen cutting equipment for P,
who was going to use it to rob a bank.
Argued in court that he was innocent because he
didn't know which bank would be robbed and
when.
GUILTY - You don't need to know the specific
details, just the type of crime.

21. Joint Enterprise
Supposed to cure the problem of causation where it is
impossible to identify who landed the killer blow.
If a gang of five people kick a man to death, all five
will be convicted of murder even though you might
only have repeatedly kicked him in the leg.

22. Joint Enterprise
Three requirements:
1) D must have foresight that P may commit a
certain crime.
2) D must foresee that P will have the required
mens rea for that crime.
3) The crime must occur during the course of the
joint enterprise.

23. Joint Enterprise
R v English (1997)
D and E took part in a joint enterprise to batter a
police officer with wooden posts.
E suddenly produced a knife and stabbed the
police officer to death.

24. Joint Enterprise
R v English (1997)
"If two parties embark on a joint enterprise and one
party foresees that in the course of that enterprise
the other party may commit, with the requisite
mens rea, and act constituting another crime, the
former is liable for that crime if committed by the
latter in the course of the enterprise."

25. Joint Enterprise
R v English (1997)
The House of Lords quashed D's conviction for
murder.
He did not foresee that E would pull out a knife and
- since a knife is far more dangerous than a
wooden post - didn't foresee that the joint
enterprise would be so risky to the police officer's
life.

26. Joint Enterprise
Rahman and Others (2008)
Lord Bingham: If D knows that P possesses a knife
(for example) then it's likely he knew that he
would use it to kill.
Therefore D foresees that P will commit murder.
Therefore D is guilty of murder.

27. Joint Enterprise
It is possible to withdraw from a joint enterprise, but
you must serve unequivocal notice to the other parties
that if they continue, they do so without your
assistance.

28. Joint Enterprise
R v Mitchell (2008)
D was involved in an aggressive attack in a taxi rank with some friends.
Her friends briefly left to collect some weapons while she lingered in the
car park looking for her shoes.
When they returned they murdered the victim while D was still on the
scene.
She argued that she had nothing to do with the murder because there were
two separate joint enterprises.
Court of Appeal: This was one long joint enterprise and she didn't say
anything to them to communicate that she was withdrawing. Guilty of
murder.

29. Joint Enterprise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsQLnJ8r5c4