R v Clarkson [1971]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: David Clarkson (D) was present at the scene where a woman was subjected to three instances of rape. However, there was no evidence to suggest he participated in or actively encouraged the crime. He was merely a passive observer.

Issue: Whether mere presence at the scene, without evidence of active encouragement or participation, is sufficient to establish liability for aiding and abetting a crime.

Held: The Court of Appeal allowed Clarkson’s appeal, quashing his conviction for aiding and abetting due to the lack of evidence of active encouragement.

Key Judicial Statements: Megaw LJ emphasized that "mere presence at the scene is not enough" to establish liability for aiding and abetting. He clarified that the prosecution must demonstrate not only an intent to encourage but also evidence of actual encouragement. Since Clarkson’s presence did not include any form of active encouragement, the criteria for aiding and abetting were not satisfied. The court also highlighted that under English law, an offence of omission requires a duty of care, which was not applicable in this context.

💡 Leveluplaw : R v Clarkson shows that mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient for aiding and abetting liability. Active encouragement must be proven to secure a conviction. This case emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between passive presence and active participation, reinforcing that liability for aiding and abetting cannot be based on omission unless a duty of care exists.