Introduction
The case of R v Howe [1987] AC 417, decided by the House of Lords, is a key ruling in English criminal law on the responsibility of those who assist in crimes. This judgment confirmed that someone helping in a crime can be found guilty of a more serious offence than the main offender, especially in murder cases. The decision focuses on assigning responsibility based on each person’s involvement. Legal rules on group participation and secondary roles were reviewed, stating that helpers must have the required intent for the offence charged, even if the main offender is convicted of a lesser crime. The ruling in Howe clarified the law on participation in criminal acts.
The Facts of R v Howe
The case involved two murders where the defendants, Howe and Bannister, took part in killings under threats from another person. In both cases, the main offender was convicted of manslaughter due to reduced responsibility, while Howe and Bannister were charged with murder as helpers. The key question for the House of Lords was whether the defence of threats, available to the main offender, could also apply to helpers.
Duress as a Defence
The House of Lords considered whether threats could be a defence to murder. Earlier cases had decided threats could apply to charges other than murder, but their use for the main offender in murder cases was unclear. The House of Lords ruled clearly that threats are not a defence to murder for the main offender.
Accessory Liability Exceeding Principal Liability
The central legal issue in R v Howe was whether a helper could be convicted of murder even if the main offender was found guilty of a lesser offence like manslaughter. The House of Lords agreed this was possible. The decision rested on the idea that a helper’s responsibility comes from their own intent and actions, not just the main offender’s conviction. Therefore, if the helper intended murder, they could be convicted of that offence regardless of the main offender’s result. This set the rule that a helper’s responsibility can be greater than the main offender’s.
Implications for Joint Enterprise
The Howe ruling clarified rules on group criminal acts, where multiple people take part in a crime. The decision stressed that each person’s responsibility must be judged separately, based on their intent. This means even if one person is convicted of a lesser offence due to specific circumstances, others can still face charges for a more serious offence if their intent and actions justify it. This ensured accountability based on individual roles. R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 later changed the law on group acts, replacing the earlier “foresight rule” from cases like R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] AC 168.
Significance of R v Howe
R v Howe remains a key case in English criminal law on helper liability. The case confirmed that a helper can be convicted of a more serious offence than the main offender, particularly in murder. This rule ensures individuals are held responsible for their own intent and actions, regardless of the main offender’s outcome. The decision has affected later cases, shaping how courts handle participation in crimes and stressing the need to assess individual responsibility. Howe also helped define the law on threats as a defence, setting clear limits in murder cases and distinguishing the roles of main offenders and helpers.
Conclusion
The judgment in R v Howe provides a clear legal basis for understanding helper liability in criminal acts. By confirming that helpers can face charges for more serious offences than main offenders, the House of Lords upheld individual responsibility in group crimes. This decision, along with later cases like R v Jogee, has influenced English criminal law, highlighting the need to assess each person’s intent separately. The case supports the rule that participating in a crime with the intent required for a more serious offence can lead to conviction for that offence, regardless of the main offender’s result. R v Howe continues to affect how courts apply helper liability in current legal practice.
