R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129

Facts

  • Bainbridge was charged as an accessory before the fact to the offence of breaking and entering a bank.
  • He purchased oxygen cutting equipment, which was used by the principal offenders to gain entry to the bank.
  • Bainbridge asserted he thought the equipment would be used for some unlawful purpose, such as cutting up stolen goods, but denied knowing about the specific plan to rob the bank.

Issues

  1. Whether accessory liability before the fact requires the accessory to know the exact details of the principal offence.
  2. Whether knowledge that a crime of a particular kind or category will be committed is sufficient to establish liability.
  3. The extent to which general awareness of criminal purpose, without specific knowledge of the principal's precise plan, satisfies the mental element for accessory liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld Bainbridge's conviction as an accessory before the fact.
  • The Court held that it was unnecessary for Bainbridge to know the precise details of the planned offence, such as the specific target or timing.
  • It was sufficient that Bainbridge was aware the equipment would be used for some form of breaking and entering, establishing knowledge of a category of crime under law.
  • The judgment confirmed that liability is based on awareness of the type or category of intended offence, not on knowledge of specific acts.

Legal Principles

  • An accessory before the fact must know that a crime of a particular kind will be committed, but need not know precise details such as the exact object, place, or time.
  • Requirements for accessory liability focus on the defendant’s knowledge of the broad character of the criminal act, not minute details.
  • The principle set out in Bainbridge has been affirmed and built on in subsequent cases, underscoring that demanding specific knowledge of every detail is not realistic for establishing accessory liability.
  • Bainbridge provides guidance for both prosecution and defence regarding the necessary scope of evidence and argument on knowledge for accessory liability.

Conclusion

R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 establishes that for accessory liability before the fact, it is enough for the accused to know of the intended type or category of offence rather than the exact details. The case remains central to interpreting the mental element required for accessory liability and shapes ongoing legal analysis in this area.

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