To Procure
Means to produce by endeavours.
In Attorney Generals Reference No. 1 of 1975
A defendant, knowing that a motorist would shortly drive home, surreptitiously laced his drinks by adding spirits to them.
Consequently, the motorist drove while the alcohol concentration in his blood was above the prescribed limit and was convicted of the offence.
The defendant was charged with aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of the motorist's offence. He was acquitted on a ruling of no case to answer.
On the Attorney-General's reference to the Court of Appeal on the question of whether the defendant was entitled to the ruling of no case to answer.
It was held, that, since the lacing of the motorist's drinks was surreptitiously done so that he was unaware of what had happened and there was a causal link between the defendant's act and the offense by the motorist who would not have committed it otherwise, the defendant had procured the commission of the motorist's offence; and that, therefore, there was a case to answer.
Also Read: Participation In and Liability for Crimes.
Aiding
It means aiding in the commission of an offense.
R v Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217. Leak persuaded Cogan to have sexual intercourse with Mrs. Leak, telling him that she liked being forced to have sex against her will and that if she struggled it was merely evidence of her enjoyment.
Cogan was convicted of rape but appealed successfully against his conviction on the basis that he had honestly thought she was consenting to sexual intercourse.
Leak appealed against his conviction for aiding and abetting the rape, on the basis that if the principal had been acquitted, there was no offence to which he could have been an accomplice.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the actus reus of rape had been committed by Cogan in that Mrs Leak had been forced to submit to sexual intercourse without her consent.
If Leak had known that she was not consenting, and thus had the necessary men's rea to be an accomplice.
Alternatively, the court was willing to view Cogan as an innocent agent through whom Leak had committed the offense of rape.
Abetting
Refers to behaviour that could be said to incite or encourage an offence at the time of the offence.
Examples might include the encouragement to carry out the offense by calling out or shouting to the principal offender at the scene of the crime.
There is no need to prove that the principal would not have committed the crime but for being abetted by an accomplice. There is no need to prove any consensus between the parties.
In the case of
Wilcox v Jeffery (1951) All ER 464
the proprietor of a jazz magazine, Defendant met the visiting musician at the airport to report on his arrival and subsequently purchased a ticket for and attended a concert given by the musician, which he then reviewed in his magazine.
The visiting musician's performance was in contravention of a government ordinance forbidding him, as an alien, to take up employment while he was in the country.
The issue was whether did the defendant aid and abet a visiting musician in violating a government law prohibiting aliens from entering into employment contracts.
Held that insomuch as the Defendant purchased a ticket for a visiting musician illegal jazz performance and subsequently wrote an article on the performance in a magazine that he publishes for profit, the Defendants actions aided and abetted the musician in violation of a British prohibition on aliens taking employment within the country.
Defendant knew that music was contravening British law by performing in public and his purchase of a ticket to see the engagement and write about it can be treated as encouragement in the unlawful enterprise.
The doctrine of common intention
It is provided for under section 20 of the PCA which provides that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offense is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence.
In R v. Tabulayenka S/o Kiirya and Orders 1943 10 EACA,
it was held that common intention may be inferred from the presence of the accused at the scene, actions, omissions to disassociate oneself from the crime.
See HCT-04-CR-SC-272-2013 Uganda versus Ndyabahika Collins Somani alias John Buller and others discusses common intention.