Court of Appeal
| Date | 01 February 2009 |
| Published date | 01 February 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.1.541 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Counselling a Crime: Causation or Connection?
R vLuffman and Briscoe [2008] EWCA Crim 1379
Keywords Counselling; Procuring; Murder; Secondary participation;
Causation
The first defendant, Yvette Luffman, was the deceased Simon Luffman’s
(L) ex-wife and the second defendant, Wayne Briscoe, was in a relation-
ship with Yvette Luffman. In 2003 the defendants approached Convery
(C) and asked him to kill L. C agreed to complete the murder for £30,000
and was given an initial payment. On 18 October 2003, C met L in a bar
and offered L a quantity of drugs that he wished to sell. C arranged a
meeting with L maintaining that this meeting was planned in order to
rob L and there was never an intention to kill him. On 19 October 2003,
C met and killed L. C also returned the shotgun and the used cartridges
to Briscoe. At C’s trial for murder he contended that he had killed L in
self-defence, as L had pulled a gun out on him. However, C was
convicted of murder and later gave evidence in the trial of the defend-
ants. At end of the prosecution case the defence counsels submitted
there was no case to answer. This submission was rejected by the judge
and the defendants were convicted. They both appealed against their
convictions on the basis that:
1. there had been no encouragement from them because C had never
formed the intention to murder the deceased in accordance with
their wishes;
2. there had been no causal connection between the coercive activity
and the offence which had in fact been committed;
3. C had acted outside the scope of his authority and had attempted
to commit robbery which had been unknown to and unauthorised
by them; and
4. the circumstances of the killing had been outside their contem-
plation.
The defence argued that for secondary party liability to be established
there must be causal connection between the act of aiding, abetting,
counselling or procuring and the commission of crime.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE CONVICTIONS
,
there was sufficient evidence of a connection between the acts of the
appellants and the murder. The court stated that, although the author-
ities suggested that a causal link was not a requirement for counselling,
the appeal would be dealt with on the basis that there had to be some
connection or causal link between the counselling, aiding and abetting
and the commission of the offence. The decision to proceed on this basis
was after the prosecution had conceded that such a connection was
necessary between the counselling and the commission of the offence.
12 The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 12–25
doi:1350/jcla.2009.73.1.541
To continue reading
Request your trial