Stringer v R

An accessory may be guilty of murder where, with the required intention and foresight, that person assists or encourages the principal offender. Under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, the assistance or encouragement need not occur at the moment of the killing. It need not be a but-for cause of the principal offence, but it must have a sufficient connecting link to it.

Whether conduct amounts to assistance or encouragement is ordinarily a factual question for the jury. Conduct during a sustained and continuous pursuit may satisfy that requirement. Joint enterprise is not an independent source of liability. It describes the application of ordinary principles of secondary liability.

The appellants, father and son, were convicted at Manchester Crown Court before MacDuff J of murdering Donald Donlan. Jason McPhee, who had pleaded guilty, inflicted the fatal stab wounds.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants were secondary parties. It said that, knowing McPhee had a knife and foreseeing its possible use, they joined a sustained chase of the victim and encouraged or assisted the eventual attack. The appellants maintained that they were spectators and did not know that McPhee was using a knife until the end.

They appealed against conviction on the grounds that the directions on joint enterprise were wrong or confusing and that the judge's summing-up of the evidence was unfair. The central issue was whether their participation in the chase could amount to assistance or encouragement for murder.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The convictions were safe.

2. There is no special rule governing secondary liability in murder cases. As stated in Powell and English [1999] 1 AC 1, ordinary principles apply. Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 requires assistance or encouragement, accompanied by the necessary mental element. A joint enterprise is not an independent legal basis of liability; it is a description of mutual assistance or encouragement.

3. The court explained Mendez and Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 516. The principal must act with the defendant's assistance or encouragement, but the defendant need not give that assistance or encouragement at the very moment of the offence. Nor must the conduct be a but-for cause. It must, however, have a sufficient connecting link to the principal offence. Assistance must make a contribution, and encouragement must be capable of acting on the principal's mind. Whether that threshold is met is normally a question for the jury.

4. On the evidence, the appellants' conduct could amount to assistance or encouragement. The jury's verdicts meant that they found the appellants had the requisite intention, knowledge and foresight. Their participation in a sustained chase, followed closely in time and place by the stabbing, was capable of forming part of a continuing sequence which encouraged and assisted McPhee.

5. The judge's use of the language of participation in a joint enterprise was not erroneous. Although a more direct direction in terms of assistance or encouragement would have been preferable, the directions as a whole identified the essential ingredients and properly focused the jury's attention.

6. The summing-up was fair overall. The omission to repeat Yasmin Bell's supporting evidence concerning Middle Lane was an oversight, but it did not render the convictions unsafe. The judge also gave adequate caution about the read statements of Donald Longbottom.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeals against conviction were dismissed: [2011] EWCA Crim 1396.

• Manchester Crown Court: On 2 July 2009, MacDuff J convicted both appellants of murder jointly with McPhee, who had pleaded guilty.