NCB v Gamble, [1959] 1 QB 11

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Logan, a property manager, suspects that two contractors plan to misuse chemicals for an environmentally harmful act. Despite overhearing their conversation about dumping toxic waste in a local river, Logan still provides them with undisclosed containers of chemicals. He does not particularly want the environment to be harmed, but agrees to help them due to a promised payment. The contractors proceed with the illegal dumping, causing contamination of the water supply. Logan is captured on surveillance footage handing over the chemicals after the conversation about potential misuse.


Which of the following is the single best statement regarding Logan's liability for aiding the offence?

Introduction

The concept of aiding and abetting a criminal offence requires careful examination of the intent held by the person giving help. NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11, a key ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeal, sets out a straightforward legal structure for understanding this necessary part of criminal responsibility. This case shows that awareness of the basic facts forming the offence, along with a choice to help the main offender, is enough to establish the mens rea for aiding and abetting. The judgment states that the person assisting does not need to want the offence to occur; simply disregarding the outcome is not a defence.

The Facts of NCB v Gamble

The case involved a lorry driver, Gamble, who transported coal for his employer. He drove onto a weighbridge operated by the National Coal Board (NCB). The weighbridge operator told Gamble that the lorry was overloaded. Gamble accepted this but drove away with the overloaded lorry. He was later charged with aiding and abetting his employer in committing the offence of overloading a lorry, against regulations.

The Judgment and its Importance

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Gamble's conviction. The court decided that Gamble, by knowingly allowing his employer to commit the offence (driving the overloaded lorry), and being aware of the basic elements of the offence (the overloading), had aided and abetted its commission. Lord Parker CJ gave the main judgment, stating: "If one knowingly gives assistance to another to do a certain act, knowing that the act is likely to amount to a breach of the law, one is guilty of aiding and abetting that breach of the law."

Intention versus Motive: A Main Difference

The judgment in NCB v Gamble separates intention and motive. The prosecution did not need to show that Gamble wanted the offence to happen. His choice to help, together with knowledge of the relevant facts, was enough. This rule is important as it stops individuals avoiding responsibility by claiming they did not care about the results of their actions. The case confirms that a person who gives help knowing it will support a crime is liable, no matter their personal views about the crime.

Later Cases and Uses of NCB v Gamble

The rules set out in NCB v Gamble have been regularly followed in later cases. For example, in R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129, the court agreed that awareness of the "type" of crime is enough, even if exact details are unknown. This strengthened the rule that precise knowledge of the offence is not needed; a general understanding of its illegality is enough for liability. Similarly, Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773 made clear that recklessness about whether the main offence is committed can meet the required mens rea for aiding and abetting.

Practical Effects and Examples

The NCB v Gamble rule applies to many criminal situations. For example, a shopkeeper who sells a knife to someone knowing they plan to use it in a robbery. While the shopkeeper may not want the robbery to occur, their awareness combined with selling the knife amounts to aiding and abetting. Another example is someone who supplies a getaway car for a bank robbery. Even if they do not openly support the robbery, giving help with knowledge of its planned use meets the conditions of aiding and abetting. These examples show the wide reach and importance of the rules from NCB v Gamble.

Conclusion

The judgment in NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 offers an essential legal structure for understanding the mens rea required for aiding and abetting a criminal offence. The case shows that awareness of the basic elements of the offence, along with a choice to help the main offender, is enough for liability. This rule, expanded by later cases like R v Bainbridge and Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975), remains a central part of criminal law. The case highlights the difference between intention and motive, stating that disregard for the offence’s outcome is not a defence. NCB v Gamble is still often cited, and its rules continue to influence how aiding and abetting law is used in different criminal cases.

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.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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