R v Millward [1994] 158 JP 1091

Facts

  • Millward instructed his employee to drive a tractor and trailer that was later involved in a fatal accident.
  • The employee was acquitted of causing death by reckless driving as there was insufficient evidence that he knew the vehicle was unsafe.
  • Despite the employee's acquittal, Millward was convicted as an accessory to the offence.
  • The prosecution needed to show Millward meant to procure the act constituting the actus reus and knew the vehicle was unsafe.
  • The Court of Appeal confirmed Millward’s conviction, establishing liability based on procuring the actus reus.

Issues

  1. Whether a person can be found liable as an accessory for procuring an offence when the principal does not possess the required mens rea.
  2. Whether the accessory's own mens rea and a causal link between their conduct and the commission of the actus reus are sufficient for accessory liability.
  3. How procuring an offence differs from cases of joint enterprise in establishing liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that a person may be guilty as an accessory for procuring an offence even if the principal lacks mens rea.
  • Liability as an accessory requires that the accessory intentionally procured the actus reus and possessed the necessary mens rea.
  • A direct causal connection between the accessory’s conduct and the actus reus is required for conviction.
  • Simply being aware of a risk that the offence might occur is insufficient; intent to bring about the actus reus is necessary.
  • The Court distinguished procuring from joint enterprise, as accessory liability in procuring cases does not require shared criminal intent.

Legal Principles

  • Accessory liability can arise where the accessory intentionally procures the actus reus, regardless of the principal’s mens rea.
  • The accessory must possess the required mens rea for the principal offence to be liable.
  • Procuring an offence creates liability if the accessory’s actions directly cause the principal’s actus reus.
  • Procuring offences is distinguished from joint enterprise, as it does not require a common plan or shared intent.

Conclusion

R v Millward established that procuring the commission of an offence can result in accessory liability even when the principal lacks mens rea, provided the accessory intentionally causes the actus reus and possesses the requisite mental state; this clarified the boundaries of accessory liability distinct from joint enterprise.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal