## 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.


R v Millward [1994] 158 JP 1091