DPP NI v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350 (HL)

Facts

  • Maxwell was a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and led a car with other UVF members to a pub.
  • He was unaware of the exact nature of the crime planned by the main offenders, which could have been a bombing, shooting, or another violent attack.
  • Maxwell claimed he believed the plan was only to make a threat, not to carry out an attack.
  • The main offence that occurred was a bombing of the pub.
  • The case considered whether Maxwell could be held liable as a secondary party for the bombing, despite not knowing in advance the specific method that would be used.

Issues

  1. What level of knowledge or mental state is required for secondary liability when the secondary party does not know the precise acts the principal offender intends?
  2. Is it sufficient for secondary liability that the secondary party contemplates and intends to aid or encourage a range of possible offences, even if unaware of the exact act committed?

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that a secondary party does not need to know the exact method by which the principal offence will be committed.
  • It is sufficient if the secondary party contemplates a range of possible acts (such as bombing, shooting, or other forms of violent attack), and intentionally aids or encourages the commission of any act within that range.
  • The range considered must not be "too wide" but must include the "type" of act actually done.
  • Maxwell was found liable because the bombing fell within the contemplated set of possible offences.

Legal Principles

  • Secondary liability for assisting or encouraging a crime does not require knowledge of the specific method to be used by the principal offender.
  • The mental state required is intentional assistance or encouragement of acts falling within a contemplated range of possible offences.
  • Purpose or intent to aid or encourage a possible offence is required; mere suspicion or knowledge is insufficient.
  • The liability is limited to acts within the category or “type” of conduct that the secondary party had intentionally supported.
  • Subsequent cases have further clarified that proof of intent, rather than suspicion, determines liability (as reaffirmed in later cases such as R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8).

Conclusion

DPP NI v Maxwell established that for secondary liability, intentional assistance or encouragement towards a contemplated range of offences is sufficient, provided the actual offence committed falls within that range; specific knowledge of the exact act is not required, and purpose remains central to liability.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal