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
- Whether an accessory can be convicted when the principal is acquitted due to a defense that removes mens rea for the principal offense.
- 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.