Introduction
Procuring, within criminal law, means intentionally causing a crime. This principle, explained in A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975), outlines the factors needed to establish liability for procurement. The House of Lords set out the criteria for proving someone caused an offence, distinguishing it from aiding, abetting, or only providing tools. This ruling continues to influence how courts apply procurement.
The Meaning of Procurement: More Than Simple Assistance
The main question in A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) was defining procurement. The case involved a defendant who added alcohol to another person’s drink, knowing they would drive. That person was later convicted of drunk driving. The House of Lords decided whether the defendant caused the offence. They ruled that procurement requires a deliberate act to make the crime occur, not just creating an opportunity. This sets it apart from supplying tools or situations where a crime might occur.
Intent as Central to Procurement
The House of Lords stressed that intent is essential. To cause an offence, the defendant must want the main offender to commit the crime. This connects procurement to other offences where mental state matters. The court compared knowing a crime could happen to actively wanting it. Merely expecting the crime is not enough without clear intent.
Causation: Linking Actions to the Crime
The House of Lords also examined how the defendant’s actions related to the offence. They stated that the defendant’s conduct must contribute to the crime, even if not the only cause. This limits liability to cases where actions directly result in the offence. Simply enabling a crime is insufficient; the defendant must have a definite role.
Procurement Compared to Other Liabilities
The House of Lords distinguished procurement from aiding, abetting, or advising. The main difference is deliberate intent. Aiding or abetting involves help or support without requiring intent for the crime itself. Procurement requires intent and a direct link. This difference ensures responsibility is assigned accurately.
Use of A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) in Later Cases
The principles from A-G’s Reference have guided later rulings. For example, in R v Millward [1994] Crim LR 527, the Court of Appeal applied these principles in a reckless driving case. Such cases show the lasting importance of the House of Lords’ decision. Intent and causation remain central to determining procurement.
Conclusion
A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) is a key case for understanding procurement in criminal law. The House of Lords ruled that procurement requires intent to cause a crime and a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the offence. This separates it from other liabilities. The ruling still helps courts assess accomplice roles. Its focus on intent and causation ensures fair assignment of responsibility, reflecting the defendant’s actual role. Clear rules like these are needed for justice.
