R v Clarkson
Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough for accessorial liability; the defendant must intend to encourage, and actually encourage, the principal.
Facts
Two soldiers, Clarkson and Carroll, heard noises coming from a room in their barracks and went in. They found other soldiers raping a young woman. They stayed in the room and watched, but did not take part or say or do anything. They were convicted by a court martial of aiding and abetting rape.
Legal principle
The Courts-Martial Appeal Court quashed the convictions. Megaw LJ said that non-accidental presence at the scene of a crime is not, by itself, sufficient to make a person guilty of aiding and abetting it. It must be proved that the defendant intended to encourage the principal offender, and that the principal was in fact encouraged by his presence. The court martial had not been properly directed on these requirements, and the convictions were unsafe.
Related cases on inchoate offences and accessorial liability
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 1 WLR 274
- DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350
- Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476
- National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
- R v Anderson [1986] AC 27
- R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129
- R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
