Complicating Complicity: Aiding and Abetting Causing Death by Dangerous Driving in R v Martin
| Author | Sally Cunningham |
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00870.x |
CASES
Complicating Complicity: Aiding and Abetting Causing
DeathbyDangerousDrivinginRvMartin
Sally Cunningham
n
The lawof complicity,particularly relating to jointe nterprise liability, appearsto becoming more
and more complicated. Cases on secondary liability for murder in the Court of Appeal demon-
strate thatthi s area of lawis di⁄cult to i nterpretand to apply. Even morecomplex is the question
of how to applythes e cases to o¡ences other than murder.This cas e note attemptsto address the
Court of Appeal’s questions in the case of RvMar tin as to how the jury ought to be directed i n a
case of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving.
INTRODUCTION
Those who aid, abet counsel or procure an o¡ence will, by virtue of section 8 of
the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, be liable to conviction for that o¡ence.
Cases on complicity in recent years have focused on the doctrine of joint enter-
prise liability, leaving the law in some confusion
1
and raising questions as to
whether the doctrine operates as a head of liability distinct from other modes of
participation.
2
The vast majority of cases on joint enterprise, and thus (because of
their number) oncomplicity in crime, relate to murder charges.Very fewcases in
recent years have explored the requirements for convicting aiders and abettors
beyond the context of joint enterprises resulting in murder.
The leading case on joint enterprise murder is, of course, Powell an d Engli sh,
3
more recently having undergone an (unsuccessful) attempt at clari¢cation in
Rahman.
4
The House of Lords in these appeals was dealing with cases in which
the deceased was killed byone of a group of peoplewho participated in an attack
on the victimwith a varietyof weapons, one of whom caused death in so doing.
Alongside the important question of exactly what the guidance given for such
cases amountsto, is the questionof the extent to whichthis guidance is applicable
to cases other thanthose involvinggroup violenceresulting in death. If the courts
are unable to provide straightforward directions to jurors in cases of murder
(hence15 appealsin 11years),how can theybe expected to do anybetter in relation
to other o¡ences?
n
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Leicester. Thanks to C. M.V. Clarkson and an anonymous
MLR referee for comments on earlier drafts.
1In his comment on RvMendesandThompson [2010] EWCACrim 516,Dyson reports that there have
been more than 15Court of Appeal and House of Lords dec isions in the last 11years on joint enter-
prise liability: M. Dyson,‘MoreAppealing Joint Enterprise’(2010)69 CLJ 425.
2See, for example, B. Krebs,‘JointCriminal Enterprise’(2010) 73 MLR 578.
3RvPowell(Anthony),R vEnglish [1999] 1 AC1 (Powell and English).
4RvRahman [2009] 1 AC 129 (Rahman).
r2011The Authors.The Modern Law Review r2011The Modern Law Review Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2011) 74(5) 767^793
To continue reading
Request your trial