## Facts

- The defendants were serving soldiers stationed in barracks accommodation.
- On the evening in question they wandered into a room where a fellow soldier was in the course of raping a woman.
- According to the prosecution evidence, the defendants neither laid hands on the victim nor restrained or disarmed the principal offender.
- They remained in the room for the duration of the assault, watched what was happening, and uttered no protest or warning.
- The atmosphere in the room, while intimidating for the victim, involved only one physical aggressor; the defendants were silent spectators who did nothing to assist or comfort her.
- After the incident the woman reported the rape. The principal offender was charged with rape, and the defendants were indicted as secondary parties on the basis that their presence and awareness encouraged the principal offender.
- The trial judge directed the jury that they could infer encouragement from the defendants’ continued presence, and convictions followed.
- The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the jury had been misdirected and that mere passive presence could not amount to aiding and abetting.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ silent presence, coupled with knowledge of the rape, could as a matter of law amount to aiding and abetting the principal offence.
2. Whether the mens rea for aiding and abetting requires an intention to encourage or assist, as distinct from simple awareness of the crime.
3. Whether an omission to intervene, absent a specific legal duty to act, can satisfy the actus reus of secondary liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed the appeal and quashed each conviction.
- Lawton J, delivering the judgment, stated that aiding and abetting is not established by mere failure to intervene; there must be active conduct—by words, gestures, or other actions—intended to facilitate the crime.
- Presence can constitute encouragement only where the circumstances clearly demonstrate that the defendant’s continued attendance was meant, and was perceived by the principal, as approval or support.
- The prosecution had adduced no evidence of words of approval, no cheering on, no physical assistance, and no evidence that the principal offender relied upon the moral support of the spectators.
- Consequently, the defendants’ failure to act, without any further indicia of intent, was legally insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- Aiding and abetting comprises two essential elements:
  - Actus reus: an act of encouragement or assistance that in fact aids the commission of the principal offence.
  - Mens rea: an intention to render such encouragement or assistance, or at least knowledge that one’s conduct will do so.
- Silence or inaction may, in an appropriate case, amount to encouragement, but only where it is accompanied by evidence permitting the inference that the bystander intended to convey approval or support.
- Absence of a duty to act is decisive in most omission cases. Soldiers in a barracks owed no specific legal duty to the victim, and the law does not generally criminalise a failure to intervene to prevent a crime committed by another.
- Mere presence and awareness, even if accompanied by moral culpability or indifference, cannot be stretched into criminal liability without undermining the fundamental principle that criminal responsibility rests on intentional and voluntary conduct.
- The decision preserves the distinction between moral blameworthiness and legal guilt, ensuring that spectators are not punished as principals or accessories unless their conduct crosses the threshold of deliberate encouragement.

## Conclusion

R v Clarkson confirms that liability as a secondary party requires more than witnessing wrongdoing with knowledge and disapproval. Only deliberate encouragement or assistance—manifested through words, gestures, or other affirmative conduct and coupled with an intention to aid—will suffice. The case thus reinforces the importance of intent in secondary liability and protects individuals from conviction on the basis of passive inaction alone.


R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402