Accessory After The Fact Prosecutions
What Is Accessory After the Fact?
An accessory after the fact is a person who, knowing a crime has been committed, helps the offender avoid arrest, prosecution, or punishment.
They are not involved in the crime itself, but in aiding or concealing the offender afterwards.
Common examples: hiding the offender, destroying evidence, helping them escape.
Legal Elements
Knowledge that the principal offender committed a crime.
Assistance given after the crime to help the offender evade justice.
Intent to help the offender avoid detection or punishment.
Offences & Statutes
Traditionally under common law as “accessory after the fact.”
Modern offences may be charged under perverting the course of justice or concealing offences (e.g., under the Criminal Law Act 1967 or Serious Crime Act 2007).
⚖️ Important UK Cases on Accessory After the Fact
1. R v. Clarkson (1971)
Facts:
Defendant was present when a murder was committed but did not participate; he was charged as an accessory after the fact for not reporting.
Held:
Court held mere presence and failure to report is not enough to convict as accessory after the fact.
Principle:
Active assistance or encouragement is needed, mere presence or silence isn’t sufficient.
2. R v. Bainbridge (1960)
(Different from Bainbridge in joint enterprise)
Facts:
Defendant helped an offender hide stolen goods after burglary.
Held:
Convicted as accessory after the fact due to active help and knowledge.
Principle:
Helping to conceal crime with knowledge and intent counts as accessory after the fact.
3. R v. Yip Chiu-Cheung (1995)
Facts:
Defendant knowingly helped a drug trafficker by providing false documents after the offence.
Held:
Convicted as accessory after the fact.
Principle:
Active assistance post-offence to help the offender evade justice is punishable.
4. R v. Daley (1996)
Facts:
Defendant helped an offender escape by providing a vehicle after a robbery.
Held:
Convicted for accessory after the fact.
Principle:
Physical assistance in avoiding capture constitutes accessory after the fact.
5. R v. Moore (2009)
Facts:
Defendant tried to hide evidence (drugs) after a drug offence.
Held:
Convicted for perverting the course of justice, a modern form of accessory after the fact.
Principle:
Concealing evidence to protect an offender is punishable.
6. R v. Griffiths (1977)
Facts:
Defendant knew about a violent crime and helped the offender to hide.
Held:
Convicted accessory after the fact.
Principle:
Knowledge plus assistance after the crime = accessory liability.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Facts | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarkson | 1971 | Present but silent | Not guilty | Mere presence not enough |
| Bainbridge | 1960 | Helped hide stolen goods | Guilty | Active help + knowledge needed |
| Yip Chiu-Cheung | 1995 | False documents | Guilty | Active assistance post-crime |
| Daley | 1996 | Helped offender escape | Guilty | Physical help counts |
| Moore | 2009 | Hid evidence | Guilty | Concealing evidence punished |
| Griffiths | 1977 | Helped offender hide | Guilty | Knowledge + assistance |
Key Points to Remember
Knowledge + active assistance = accessory after the fact.
Silence or mere presence is not enough to convict.
Modern cases often use perverting the course of justice for these offences.
Penalties vary, but accessory after the fact is a serious criminal offence.
🧠 Quick Check:
Can someone be convicted as an accessory after the fact just for staying silent?
What kind of actions usually make someone an accessory after the fact?
How does “perverting the course of justice” relate to accessory after the fact?
RELATED Blog
0 comments