## Facts

- A bare-knuckle prize fight was arranged in a roped-off ring near a public road, drawing a crowd of spectators.
- Two men fought, inflicting blows that caused bodily harm; they participated by mutual consent.
- Coney and other defendants arrived, observed the gathering, and remained to watch part of the fight.
- There was no evidence the defendants organized the fight, assisted the combatants, or otherwise acted beyond watching as part of the crowd.
- The prosecution alleged the fighters committed assaults despite consent, and that the crowd’s presence encouraged the fight, making spectators aiders and abettors.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that if defendants were part of the crowd without a “suitable excuse,” they could be treated as aiding and abetting and thus guilty.
- The jury found the defendants did not in fact aid or abet, yet returned guilty verdicts; the legal correctness of the convictions and directions was reserved for review.

## Issues

1. Whether a public bare-knuckle prize fight constitutes an unlawful assault despite the combatants’ consent.
2. Whether a spectator may be convicted as an aider and abettor solely for voluntary presence at the fight, without further conduct or proof of intent to encourage.
3. Whether a bystander has a general legal duty to intervene to prevent an offence such that non-intervention can create accomplice liability.

## Decision

- The court held that a bare-knuckle prize fight in public is an unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm notwithstanding the fighters’ consent.
- The court held that voluntary presence as a spectator may be evidence from which a jury can infer aiding and abetting, but presence alone does not necessarily establish accomplice liability.
- The court rejected any general rule that ordinary citizens have a legal duty to prevent offences; mere failure to intervene does not, without more, make a bystander an accomplice.
- The court treated convictions resting on directions equating unjustified presence with aiding and abetting as legally unsound.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is not a defence to assault where the harm or circumstances make the conduct injurious to the public; public prize fighting falls within this category.
- Aiding and abetting requires proof of intentional assistance or encouragement; passive presence is not automatically enough.
- Voluntary attendance at the scene of an offence can be circumstantial evidence of encouragement, depending on proximity, conduct, and surrounding circumstances.
- There is no general common-law duty on an ordinary bystander to prevent a crime; omission to act does not alone create secondary liability.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that public prize fighting remains criminal despite participant consent and clarified that spectators are not guilty as accomplices merely for watching; liability requires proof that the spectator intended by presence or conduct to encourage or assist the unlawful fight, and non-intervention alone is not enough.


R. v. Coney, (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 534 (C.C.R.)