R v Millward [1994] Crim LR 527 (CA) Facts: The appellant was convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring another person to cause death by reckless driving. The prosecution case was that the appellant had given one of his employees instructions which involved him using a tractor belonging to the appellant to tow a trailer on a main road. The tractor’s hitch was poorly maintained and during the journey the trailer became detached and hit a car, causing the death of a passenger. The recklessness alleged was confined to the state of the hitch mechanism, and the appellant was said to have procured the offence by his instructions to his employee. It was argued on appeal that there was no reported case of a procurer being convicted following the acquittal of a principal offender. Further, in the instant case, the word ‘reckless’ imported a mental element into the actus reus of the offence. The acquittal thus implied that the actus reus had not been committed. Held, dismissing the appeal: 1 A passage in Blackstone’s Criminal Practice was approved, to the effect that an accessory can be liable provided that there is the actus reus of the principal offence even if the principal offender is entitled to be acquitted because of some defence personal to him. Procuring does not require a joint intention between accessory and principal. The procurer may, therefore, be convicted where the principal lacks the necessary mens rea. 2 In the instant case, the actus reus was taking of the vehicle in its defective condition on to the road so as to cause the death. It was procured by the appellant. 3 The ratio of Thornton v Mitchell [1940] 1 All ER 339 was that the driver did not commit the actus reus of careless driving, the offence in that case. He relied on the conductor’s signals. 4 Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217 was, contrary to the submissions of the defence, essentially a case of procuring rather than aiding and abetting, and could not be distinguished from the present case. Principal offender has a defence not available to the accomplice

DOI link for R v Millward [1994] Crim LR 527 (CA) Facts: The appellant was convicted of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring another person to cause death by reckless driving. The prosecution case was that the appellant had given one of his employees instructions which involved him using a tractor belonging to the appellant to tow a trailer on a main road. The tractor’s hitch was poorly maintained and during the journey the trailer became detached and hit a car, causing the death of a passenger. The recklessness alleged was confined to the state of the hitch mechanism, and the appellant was said to have procured the offence by his instructions to his employee. It was argued on appeal that there was no reported case of a procurer being convicted following the acquittal of a principal offender. Further, in the instant case, the word ‘reckless’ imported a mental element into the actus reus of the offence. The acquittal thus implied that the actus reus had not been committed. Held, dismissing the appeal: 1 A passage in Blackstone’s Criminal Practice was approved, to the effect that an accessory can be liable provided that there is the actus reus of the principal offence even if the principal offender is entitled to be acquitted because of some defence personal to him. Procuring does not require a joint intention between accessory and principal. The procurer may, therefore, be convicted where the principal lacks the necessary mens rea. 2 In the instant case, the actus reus was taking of the vehicle in its defective condition on to the road so as to cause the death. It was procured by the appellant. 3 The ratio of Thornton v Mitchell [1940] 1 All ER 339 was that the driver did not commit the actus reus of careless driving, the offence in that case. He relied on the conductor’s signals. 4 Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217 was, contrary to the submissions of the defence, essentially a case of procuring rather than aiding and abetting, and could not be distinguished from the present case. Principal offender has a defence not available to the accomplice

ABSTRACT

Lord Goddard CJ: The appellant was indicted before Hallett J at the last assizes for Worcestershire and convicted of aiding and abetting his wife to commit the offence commonly called bestiality. The circumstances were such that nobody can approach this case without feeling the utmost repulsion, and indeed the learned judge thought it right, and I think he was quite right, to have a special report on the sanity of the appellant before he tried him. Without going into more of the revolting facts of this case than one can help, the appellant, who is only 28 years of

age, his wife being a year or two younger, compelled her on two occasions to submit to the insertion of the male organ of a dog which he had excited into her vagina. That such a man should be allowed to be at large is almost intolerable and dreadful. Though he denied the offence when he went into the witness box, he had admitted it to the police. He had gone to the police to inquire where his wife and children were. The police meantime had been informed of what had been going on, I suppose on complaint by the wife, and they told him what had been suggested and he made a full confession to them, saying he admitted he had been a brute to his wife ...