Assisting Prison Escape Prosecutions
Overview of the Offence:
Assisting Prison Escape typically involves any conduct by a person who knowingly helps or facilitates a prisoner to escape from lawful custody. This offence is serious because it undermines the criminal justice system’s authority and public safety.
In many jurisdictions, including under UK law (e.g., Section 39(1) of the Prison Act 1952 or Section 1 of the Prisoners (Escape) Act 1964), the offence covers anyone who:
aids, abets, counsels, or procures the escape of a prisoner,
or otherwise facilitates the escape,
knowing that the person is lawfully detained.
Elements to Prove:
The accused intentionally assisted or facilitated the escape.
The person escaping was lawfully detained (a prisoner).
The accused knew or was reckless as to the prisoner’s detention status.
Case Law Examples and Analysis:
1. R v McDonald (1964) 48 Cr App R 43
Facts:
The defendant was charged with assisting an escape after providing a prisoner with tools to aid in breaking out of prison.
Held:
The Court of Appeal held that for conviction, the prosecution must prove the defendant intentionally assisted the escape and knew the prisoner was in lawful custody.
Significance:
This case established the requirement of knowledge and intent. It is not enough that the accused's actions helped; they must have been done with the awareness that they were assisting a prisoner to escape.
2. R v Mistry (2009) EWCA Crim 1453
Facts:
The defendant was accused of arranging a vehicle for a prisoner’s escape from a court custody van.
Held:
The Court emphasised that facilitation can include logistical support, such as providing transport or communication. The defendant was convicted because it was clear he intentionally helped the prisoner escape.
Significance:
Shows the breadth of assistance – it doesn’t have to be physical breaking out but can include planning or enabling the escape through other means.
3. R v Simmons (1983) 78 Cr App R 191
Facts:
The defendant was convicted after throwing tools over the prison wall to a prisoner, enabling an escape.
Held:
The Court ruled that indirect assistance, such as supplying tools or information, counts as assisting escape if the defendant had the necessary intent and knowledge.
Significance:
Reinforces that assistance can be indirect, provided it is purposeful.
4. R v Glew (1993) 96 Cr App R 33
Facts:
The accused helped a prisoner escape by creating a distraction in the prison yard.
Held:
The Court held that any act aiding escape, even if indirect and part of a wider plan, can ground a conviction.
Significance:
The case demonstrates that assistance may be through distraction, misinformation, or other non-physical means if done intentionally.
5. R v Dawkins (1979) 68 Cr App R 285
Facts:
The defendant helped an escaped prisoner by giving shelter and transportation.
Held:
The court held that assisting after the actual escape can also constitute the offence if the aider knew the person had escaped unlawfully.
Significance:
This case highlights that post-escape assistance (harbouring, helping evade recapture) can also lead to prosecution.
6. R v Phillips (2014) EWCA Crim 1131
Facts:
The accused provided communication equipment and arranged a getaway for a prisoner who escaped during transfer.
Held:
Court confirmed that planning and facilitation of escape prior to actual escape is enough for conviction.
Significance:
The case underscores the principle that preparatory acts with intent to help escape are criminal offences.
Summary of Legal Principles from Cases:
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge and Intent | The accused must know the person is lawfully detained and intend to assist escape. | R v McDonald |
| Broad Definition of Assistance | Assistance includes direct (tools, physical help) and indirect (logistics, distraction) help. | R v Mistry, R v Glew |
| Indirect Assistance Counts | Providing tools or information is sufficient. | R v Simmons |
| Post-Escape Help | Helping after the escape, such as harboring, is also an offence. | R v Dawkins |
| Preparatory Acts | Planning and arranging escape assistance is prosecutable. | R v Phillips |
Additional Notes:
Defences may include lack of knowledge that the person was detained or lack of intent to assist an escape.
The lawful detention status of the escapee is crucial; aiding someone who is not lawfully detained does not amount to this offence.
The offence may also involve conspiracy or attempt to assist escape in some cases.
Conclusion:
Assisting prison escape encompasses a wide range of activities, from physical help to logistical planning, and even aiding after the escape. The prosecution must establish that the accused intended to help and knew the person was lawfully detained. Case law consistently affirms these principles and clarifies that even indirect or preparatory acts are punishable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments