Welcome

R v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125

ResourcesR v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125

Facts

  • Bourne, a surgeon, performed an abortion on a young girl who had been raped.
  • He claimed the procedure was necessary to protect the girl's health.
  • The court was required to determine whether Bourne could be convicted as an accomplice to an illegal abortion, even if his actions were considered medically justified.

Issues

  1. Whether an individual may be convicted as an accomplice to a crime if the principal offender’s actions do not amount to a criminal offence.
  2. Whether the defence of necessity could justify the act of abortion, thereby negating criminal liability for both the surgeon and the principal offender.
  3. Whether liability as a secondary party is contingent on the act and intent of the principal offender.

Decision

  • The court held that a person cannot be found guilty as an accomplice unless the principal offender’s conduct constitutes the act of a criminal offence.
  • If the abortion was legally justified based on necessity, then no crime existed and secondary (accomplice) liability could not arise.
  • The court accepted that if the jury found the abortion was genuinely necessary to protect health, no criminal act was committed by any party.
  • Secondary liability requires that the act constituting the crime be committed by the principal offender; otherwise, accomplice liability does not arise.
  • The defence of necessity can render certain acts, such as medically required abortions, lawful, thereby negating the criminal character of the conduct.
  • An individual cannot be punished for assisting acts which, although morally debated, do not legally constitute criminal offences.

Conclusion

R v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125 established that secondary liability depends on the principal offender committing a criminal act, and recognized necessity as a potential defence that negates both primary and secondary liability where actions are justified. This principle has shaped English law on accomplice liability, especially in contexts involving necessity defences.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.