## 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.
