This unit will introduce you to the parties to an offence. You will learn about principal offenders as well as accessory after the fact to the offence already committed. The schematic approach of the unit is set thus:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the commission of an offence, a number of persons may be involved and the level of their involvement may not be the same. The law, on that premise, will have to decide the extent of one’s criminal liability. According to the criminal code, two classes of parties have been identified. They are the principal offenders and the accessory after fact. The provisions of the code which deals substantially with parties of offences are sections 7, 9 and 10. Sections 510-521 also of the Criminal code are instructive. All the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to parties to offence apply to all categories whether many offences are contained in the code or any other law or enactment.2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to: tell who a party to an offence is explain why such a person should be regarded as a party to an offence state types of principal offenders explain the liability of an accessory after the fact.3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Liability Affecting a Principal Offender
Within the meaning of a principal offender, four categories have been highlighted by section 7 of the criminal code. That section provides thus: “when an offence is committed, each of the following person is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of an offence, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say;
- every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitute an offence;
- every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;
- every person who aids another person in committing the offence;
- any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.
3.2 Classes of Principal Offenders
Section 7 (a) of the Code provides for every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence. This contemplates the person who for example slaps another thereby committing a criminal assault. It also has to do with the man who set fire to a house thereby committing the offence of arson.The man, who makes the omission, is for example, the family head who fails to provide the necessaries of life of a child under the age of fourteen contrary to section 301 of the Criminal Code.
Sometimes it could be that the person who does the act is acting innocently in furtherance of any other person’s criminal intention, in such a situation, the man (person who does the act) is not criminally responsible for the act complained of. Instead, the man who used him (the principal) will be liable for the act done in accordance with section 7(d) of the criminal code.
Also, a child who is an infant is covered by section 30 which grants him the status of immaturity, any person who uses him for the commission of any offence, will not be liable for counseling and procuring under section 7(d) of the Criminal Code.
Section 7(b) of the Criminal Code involves on who des or omit; to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence.
Under section 7(b) of the Criminal Code, the act of assistance is given before the act constituting the offence. It is manifested by any form of assistance given prior to the act of the crime. When it comes to assistance, it does not mater that the assistance given is of no help to the person committing the crime.
Section 7(c) of the Criminal Code talks about every person who aids another person in committing the offence. When it comes to assistance, the West African Court of Appeal held thus “We are of the opinion that to bring a person within this section (that is to say S. 7(c) of the
Criminal Code), there must be clear evidence that the appellant did something to facilitate the commission of the offence – see the case of Enweonye v. R. (1955) WACA 1.
The law is that, if the aid or the assistance is given while the commission of the offence lasts, the aider will equally be criminally liable. See the case of R. v. Johnson (1973) Wd R 303 as well as the case of R. v. Mayberry (1 1; 73) Qd R 211.
It is settled law that mere presence at the scene of the crime without more does not make the man a party to an offence. In the cases of Azumah v. R (10, 50) 13 WACA 87, the court said “mere presence is not enough, a person must be purposely facilitating or aiding the commission of a crime by his presence before he can be regarded as an accomplice”.
Thus, a man can only be liable as a party if he is present and intentionally does an act which, in law, can be regarded as a facilitation of the crime. An interesting issue which calls for an examination is what will be the situation where all the parties are caught and at the trial, some are acquitted, by the court. In order to properly examine the above, it is suitable to take a look at the case of R. v. Okagbue (1958) 13 FSC 27, the facts of which is that three accused persons were found not guilty by the court, the third accused person was convicted for aiding them. The Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the third accused person, who was convicted by the court below. The appellate court relied on the earlier English case of R. v. Rowley (1948) 1 All ER 570. In the said English case (Rowley), the court of Criminal Appeal said that “It would be absurd to say that he (appellant) assisted and comforted persons, who he knew, committed a felony.
The law as expounded above illustrates the fact that the aider can only be convicted if the named principal is also convicted but if the principal is not named, the aider cannot be convicted on the basis that the principal is not known and is said to be at large. It is worthy to mention that because of immaturity contained in S. 30 of the Criminal Code, if a person is not criminally responsible and aided to commit an offence, it is good law to say that, no offence has been committed and S. 7 of the Criminal Code cannot apply:
S. 8: Offences Committed in Prosecution of Common Purpose The Criminal Code provides that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another and in prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed
of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence see Alagba & Org. v. The King (1950) 19NLR 124, and R. v. Atanyi (1955) 15 WACA 34.
Will it be proper in law to convict a person who was merely present at the scene of the crime but did nothing to facilitate the commission of the crime?
Section 7(d) of the cc Section 7(d) of the Criminal Code provides for any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.
Here, apart from proof of intention on the part of the procurer and counsellor, words alone will be adequate for criminal liability. The words of couselling or procuring must involve some positive act of encouragement to those who actually committed the offence.
The law is that, tacit acquiescence or ordinary words amounting to a mere permission, are not enough to amount to counseling. See Idika v. R (1959) 4 FSC 106.
Again if an accused person has counseled or procured the commission of an offence, it does not matter if he was not physically present at the commission of the offence by his confederates and that it was committed on a day different from the one he contemplated.
The question to be asked and answered here is what happens where the police set a trap for animals.
The court however accepts the strategy, whereby the police set a trap for criminals as a way of arresting them and facilitating the administration of criminal law. Under the circumstance, the initiative to commit the crime must come from the criminal and the police following that initiative, sets up the trap in order to ensnare the criminal and then tame the tide of crime to the society.
A closer look at the second limb of section 10 of the criminal code shows that a wife is not an accessory if she assists her husband to escape punishment and the husband is not similarly liable for assisting his wife
because of emotions such as love, fear or compassion may galvanize or rouse either of them into such help or assistance.
In institutionalizing this limitation, the code therein in section singled out a husband and wife of a Christian marriage for favour or protection and discriminates against other forms of marriages however well contracted and well intentioned.
There are four types of Principal offenders as can be seen in section 7 of the Criminal Code
Their unique role in a given crime determines the class in which they belong.
That, mere presence at the venue of the crime does not make a person a principal offender unless he does some thing to facilitate the commission of the offence. That, it is lawful for the police to set a trap in order to ensnare a criminal and the police officer must not be a party to the crime. That a person who receives another who has committed an offence and ran away from justice and having knowledge that the other person has committed the offence for which he is wanted, is an accessory to the fact of the main or actual offence. That protection has been given by the code to spouses of Christian marriage who have assisted either their husbands or wives to escape punishment after the commission of an offence.
It is settled law that mere presence at the scene of the crime without more does not make the man a party to an offence. In the cases of Azumah v. R (10, 50) 13 WACA 87, the court said “mere presence is not enough, a person must be purposely facilitating or aiding the commission of a crime by his presence before he can be regarded as an accomplice”.
Thus, a man can only be liable as a party if he is present and intentionally does an act which, in law, can be regarded as a facilitation of the crime. An interesting issue which calls for an examination is what will be the situation where all the parties are caught and at the trial, some are acquitted, by the court. In order to properly examine the above, it is suitable to take a look at the case of R. v. Okagbue (1958) 13 FSC 27, the facts of which is that three accused persons were found not guilty by the court, the third accused person was convicted for aiding them. The Federal Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the third accused person, who was convicted by the court below. The appellate court relied on the earlier English case of R. v. Rowley (1948) 1 All ER 570. In the said English case (Rowley), the court of Criminal Appeal said that “It would be absurd to say that he (appellant) assisted and comforted persons, who he knew, committed a felony.
The law as expounded above illustrates the fact that the aider can only be convicted if the named principal is also convicted but if the principal is not named, the aider cannot be convicted on the basis that the principal is not known and is said to be at large. It is worthy to mention that because of immaturity contained in S. 30 of the Criminal Code, if a person is not criminally responsible and aided to commit an offence, it is good law to say that, no offence has been committed and S. 7 of the Criminal Code cannot apply:
S. 8: Offences Committed in Prosecution of Common Purpose The Criminal Code provides that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another and in prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed
of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence see Alagba & Org. v. The King (1950) 19NLR 124, and R. v. Atanyi (1955) 15 WACA 34.
Proof of Common Intention
Common intention is to be distinguished from common object: it may be inferred from circumstance disclosed in the evidence, and need not be express agreement, but a presumption of a common intention should not be too readily applied see R. v. Offor and Offor (1955) 15 WACA 4; Mohan v. R [1967] 2 AC 187. In the case above two persons were charged jointly with murder, it was established that each had struck the deceased a violent blow with intent, at least to cause grievous bodily harm and also established which blow had, infact, caused death, but the evidence was open to the construction that the intention of each accused was suddenly formed and formed independently of each other, it was held that the judge’s failure to give himself a proper direction expressly as to the common intention invalidated the conviction of the appellant who struck the blow which did not cause death and a conviction against that appellant of attempt murder was substituted for one of murder.SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
Will it be proper in law to convict a person who was merely present at the scene of the crime but did nothing to facilitate the commission of the crime?
Section 7(d) of the cc Section 7(d) of the Criminal Code provides for any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.
Here, apart from proof of intention on the part of the procurer and counsellor, words alone will be adequate for criminal liability. The words of couselling or procuring must involve some positive act of encouragement to those who actually committed the offence.
The law is that, tacit acquiescence or ordinary words amounting to a mere permission, are not enough to amount to counseling. See Idika v. R (1959) 4 FSC 106.
Again if an accused person has counseled or procured the commission of an offence, it does not matter if he was not physically present at the commission of the offence by his confederates and that it was committed on a day different from the one he contemplated.
The question to be asked and answered here is what happens where the police set a trap for animals.
The court however accepts the strategy, whereby the police set a trap for criminals as a way of arresting them and facilitating the administration of criminal law. Under the circumstance, the initiative to commit the crime must come from the criminal and the police following that initiative, sets up the trap in order to ensnare the criminal and then tame the tide of crime to the society.
3.3 Liability as an Accessory after the Fact
Section 10 of the Criminal code provides for the above and states that any person who receives or assists another, who is to, his knowledge guilty of an offence, in order to enable him to escape punishment is said to become an accessory after the fact to that offence. The punishment attached to an accessory is less in terms of gravity to that attached to the actual offender. For example, while the principal offender is liable to full punishment for the actual or real offences, the punishment of an accessory after the fact is normally lesser, also in terms of gravity. The distinction is that if the substantive offence committed is a felony, two years maximum imprisonment will be imposed on the accessory but if the substantive offence is a misdemeanour or a simple offence, the punishment attached to an accessory is one half (1½) of the punishment for the substantive offence. The acts reus for the offence of an accessory is the receipt or the assistance given to the suspect after he has allegedly committed an offence and the offender now runs away for protection. A monetary reception of the suspect by the accessory will be enough in the eyes of the law provided by accessory knows that; the person received or assisted committed the offence.3.4 Limitation to Liability as an Accessory
Section 10 of the Criminal Code applies, to all manner of offences however criminalized and whether contained in the code or any other enactments.A closer look at the second limb of section 10 of the criminal code shows that a wife is not an accessory if she assists her husband to escape punishment and the husband is not similarly liable for assisting his wife
because of emotions such as love, fear or compassion may galvanize or rouse either of them into such help or assistance.
In institutionalizing this limitation, the code therein in section singled out a husband and wife of a Christian marriage for favour or protection and discriminates against other forms of marriages however well contracted and well intentioned.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2
Why has the law treated every other type of marriage, except Christian marriage, with total disfavour within the, meaning of section 10 of the Criminal Code.3.5 The Mental Element of Principal Offenders
A man can lonely be liable for an act or omission which occurs dependently of the exercise of his will and cannot be liable for any act or omission which occurs independently of exercise of his will. He cannot be liable for the act of another person unless he has willed those acts. For further reading see section 25 of the Criminal Code and the Queensland case of R. v. Solomon (1959) Qd. R 123.4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit we were able to demonstrate abundantly that a party to an offence is a person whose conduct the circumstances in which it takes place (including where relevant, a particular description with which he as a person must according to the definition of the offence, comply) and the culpability with which it is carried out are such that he satisfies all the requirements for liability contained in the definition of the offence. Or if, although his own conduct doesn’t comply with that required in the definition of the crime, he acted together with one or more persons and the conduct required for a conviction is imputed to him by virtue of the principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose.5.0 SUMMARY
There are four types of Principal offenders as can be seen in section 7 of the Criminal Code
Their unique role in a given crime determines the class in which they belong.
That, mere presence at the venue of the crime does not make a person a principal offender unless he does some thing to facilitate the commission of the offence. That, it is lawful for the police to set a trap in order to ensnare a criminal and the police officer must not be a party to the crime. That a person who receives another who has committed an offence and ran away from justice and having knowledge that the other person has committed the offence for which he is wanted, is an accessory to the fact of the main or actual offence. That protection has been given by the code to spouses of Christian marriage who have assisted either their husbands or wives to escape punishment after the commission of an offence.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
- Is the word “guilty” as used in the first limb of section 10 of the criminal code the proper word for that section?
- If, I slap a man in a manner not justified by law, I have committed the offence of criminal assault but in what class of an offender can I be classified?
- Does the act of a police officer on road block in a highway who collects N50.00 notes for his personal use forma commercial driver who has no vehicle particulars at all a police trap in the eyes of the law?
Social Plugin