## Facts

- Leak persuaded and enabled Cogan to have sexual intercourse with Leak’s wife.
- Cogan claimed he believed Leak’s wife consented to the act.
- The jury acquitted Cogan of rape based on his honest but mistaken belief in consent, which negated mens rea.
- Leak was convicted as an accessory to rape despite Cogan’s acquittal.
- Leak appealed his conviction, arguing that without Cogan's conviction as principal, there could be no accessory liability.

## Issues

1. Whether an accessory can be convicted when the principal is acquitted due to a defense that removes mens rea for the principal offense.
2. Whether procurement alone, combined with the accessory’s mens rea, is sufficient for liability when the principal lacks the required mens rea.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld Leak’s conviction as an accessory to rape.
- The court held that the principal’s acquittal, due to a mistaken belief that negated mens rea, does not prevent the accessory’s liability if the accessory possessed the necessary mens rea and caused the actus reus to occur.
- It was determined that Leak’s procurement, along with his knowledge of the lack of consent, made him liable regardless of Cogan’s belief about consent.

## Legal Principles

- Accessory liability can attach even if the principal is acquitted because a defense negates the principal’s mens rea.
- Procurement involves actively causing an offense to occur and can result in liability for an accessory when the actus reus is completed by the principal.
- The accessory’s responsibility and intent are prioritized over the outcome for the principal.
- The case highlights a distinction from standard accessory liability, which usually requires a conviction of the principal.
- R v Cogan and Leak has influenced later cases and academic analysis, confirming the accessory’s actions and intent as decisive.

## Conclusion

R v Cogan and Leak established that an accessory may be convicted even if the principal is acquitted due to a defense negating mens rea, with liability hinging on the accessory’s procurement of the act and their own mens rea. This case has had a significant and lasting effect on the law of complicity in English criminal law.


R v Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217