## Facts

- Gamble, a lorry driver transporting coal for his employer, drove onto a weighbridge operated by the National Coal Board (NCB).
- The NCB weighbridge operator informed Gamble that his lorry was overloaded.
- Acknowledging the overload, Gamble nonetheless drove away with the overloaded lorry.
- Gamble was charged with aiding and abetting his employer in committing the offence of overloading a lorry, contrary to regulations.

## Issues

1. Whether knowledge of the essential facts and voluntary assistance constitutes sufficient mens rea for aiding and abetting an offence.
2. Whether it is necessary for the aider to desire or be motivated for the offence to occur, or if mere disregard of the outcome is enough for liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Gamble's conviction for aiding and abetting the offence.
- The court held that by knowingly assisting his employer and being aware of the essential facts of the offence (overloading), Gamble had satisfied the mental element required for aiding and abetting.
- The court found it was not necessary for Gamble to desire that the offence be committed, and disregard of the outcome was not a defence.
- The principle was articulated by Lord Parker CJ: knowingly assisting another to commit an act, with knowledge the act is likely unlawful, amounts to aiding and abetting.

## Legal Principles

- Aiding and abetting requires knowledge of the basic facts constituting the offence and voluntary assistance to the principal offender.
- The motive or desire for the offence is irrelevant; intention is established by awareness and choice to provide help.
- Disregard for the outcome of the principal offence does not negate criminal liability for aiding and abetting.
- Later cases, such as R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 and Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773, have affirmed and expanded the principle, confirming that general awareness or recklessness may suffice for liability.

## Conclusion

NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 established that knowledge of the facts and voluntary assistance are sufficient for aiding and abetting; motive is immaterial. This approach remains foundational in defining criminal liability for those assisting offences, and continues to influence subsequent case law.