Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Windsor is the British head of state


THE HEAD OF STATE - The British Head of State is a Grand Patron to the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution according to the inside leaf of many yearbooks. It may be a shock to many or you to learn of this, but the revelation may go some way to explaining why it is that some people get targeted by their local authorities such as Councils and the Police.




Johnson v Youden: KBD 1950

For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements of his acts which constituted the complete crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious.

Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Before a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence he must at least know the essential matters which constitute that offence.’ and ‘He need not actually know that an offence has been committed, because he may not know that the facts constitute an offence and ignorance of the law is not a defence. If a person knows all the facts and is assisting another person to do certain things, and it turns out that the doing of those things constitutes an offence, the person who is assisting is guilty of aiding an abetting that offence, because to allow him to say, ‘I knew of all those facts but I did not know that an offence was committed’, would be allowing him to set up ignorance of the law as a defence.’
Lord Goddard CJ

[1950] 1 KB 544, [1950] 1 All ER 301, 114 JP 136

Cited by:

Cited – Webster v Regina CACD 3-Mar-2006
The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish . .

[2006] EWCA Crim 415, Times 15-Mar-06

Cited – Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .

[2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 1389, [2011] UKHRR 1287

Cited – ABC and Others, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2015
Several defendants sought to appeal against convictions. They were public officials accused of having committed misconduct in public office in the sale of information relating to their work to journalists. The journalists were convicted of . .

[2015] EWCA Crim 539, [2015] WLR(D) 146, [2015] Crim LR 633, [2015] 3 WLR 726, [2015] 1 QB 883, [2015] 2 Cr App R 10

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had directed the jury that he . .

[2016] 2 WLR 681, UKSC 2015/0015, [2016] UKSC 8, [2016] WLR(D) 84, [2016] UKPC 7








After reading this SECTION you should be able to:

- Understand the law of secondary liability — aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring

- Understand the law of joint enterprise

- Understand when secondary liability can be avoided by withdrawing

- Analyse critically the rules on secondary liability and joint enterprise

Apply the law to factual situations to determine whether there is liability either as an accessory or for a joint enterprise

5.1 Principal offenders - The State

The person or head of a State who directly and immediately causes the actus reus of the offence is the ‘perpetrator’ or ‘principal’, while those who assist or contribute to the actus reus are ‘secondary parties’, or ‘accessories’. Just because two (or more) parties are involved in the commission of a criminal offence, it does not mean that one of them must be the principal and the other their accessory. They may be both (or all) principals, provided that each has mens rea and together they carry out the actus reus (see below). If D and E plant a bomb, which explodes killing V, then they are both liable as principals for homicide. This often happens where D and E carry out a robbery or burglary together, which is referred to as a ‘joint enterprise’, although it is possible to conceive of a situation whereby D and E, for example, independently attack V and the combined effect is serious injury or death. Each would be guilty of assault as principal offenders.

5.1.1 Difficulties in identifying the principal

In some cases it may be obvious that a crime has been committed by one or both of two people but it may not be clear either who is the principal or whether the other was an accessory. In such a case, both may escape liability. There was a particular problem when a child died whilst being looked after by two parents or carers. In Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5, evidence showed that the Lanes’ child was killed between 12 noon and 8.30 pm. Each parent had been present for some of this time and absent for some of this time. It could not be proved that one was the principal nor could it be proved that the other must have been an accessory. Both had to be acquitted of manslaughter.

This problem has now been addressed by Parliament. Section 5(1) of the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004, which is discussed more fully in Chapter 10, created a new offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.


In Ikram and Parveen (2008) EWCA Crim 586; (2008) 4 All ER 253, which is factually very similar to Lane and Lane, the father of a one-year-old boy and the father’s partner were convicted under s 5 after the child suffered a non-accidental broken leg, which caused a fat embolism (when fat enters the bloodstream) with fatal consequences. No one else had had any contact with the child on the fateful day, so one or other of the defendants must have been responsible. However, both defendants claimed not to know how the child’s leg was broken and with no other evidence it would have been extremely difficult to convict either defendant of murder or manslaughter. Instead, they were both convicted under s 5 of the 2004 Act.

Meanwhile, if it can be proved that D, being one of two or more parties to a crime, must have been guilty as either principal or accessory, then he may be convicted. In Giannetto (1997) 1 Cr App R 1, D was convicted of the murder of his wife, V. According to the prosecution’s case, V was murdered either by D or by a hired killer on his behalf. D appealed on the ground that, if the prosecution could not prove whether he had murdered V himself or someone else had done it, he was entitled to an acquittal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Provided, in either case, that D had the requisite actus reus and mens rea (as principal, this is causing death with intent to kill or cause really serious injury; for secondary parties, see below), then it did not matter whether he had killed her himself or encouraged another to do so.

5.2 Innocent agents

Where the perpetrator of the actus reus of a crime is an ‘innocent agent’, someone without mens rea, or not guilty because of a defence such as infancy or insanity, then the person most closely connected with the agent is the principal. So if D, an adult, employs his eight-year-old son to break in to houses and steal, the child is an innocent agent, and the father liable as principal. A well-known example of an ‘innocent agent’ acting without mens rea would be a postman unknowingly delivering a letter bomb. An example comes from the case of Cogan and Leak (1976) QB 217. L terrorised his wife into having sex with another man, C. C’s conviction for rape was quashed because his plea that he honestly believed L’s wife was consenting had not been left to the jury. L’s rape conviction was upheld on the basis that he had procured (caused) the crime to happen (see below). The Court of Appeal also considered, obiter, that L may alternatively have committed the offence as principal through the doctrine of an innocent agency. Lawton LJ said that, ‘had [L] been indicted as a principal offender, the case against him would have been clear beyond argument’.

5.3 Secondary parties

5.3.1 Actus reus of secondary parties: aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring

The law for indictable offences is set out in s 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 (s 44 of the Magistrates‘ Courts Act 1980 provides the same for summary offences): ’Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence … is liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.‘ This is a very wide definition. It should also be noted that it is possible for a secondary party to be held liable for committing an offence which they could not commit as principal. For example, a woman may commit rape as an accessory, although women cannot commit rape as principal offender (DPP v K & C (1997) Crim LR 121; see Chapter 12). A secondary party will be charged with ‘aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring’ the particular offence (murder, robbery, theft etc.) and is liable to be convicted provided that it can be proved that he participated in at least one of the four ways. The Court of Appeal has held that the words should simply bear their ordinary meaning. In Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1975) (1975) 2 All ER 684, Lord Widgery CJ said:



The mens rea of a secondary party: Intention1. D must be AWARE of the factual circumstances of the crime;Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544 the accessory 'must at least know the essential matters which constitute the offence’1. D must intend to assist or encourage the commission of the principle offence; National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 1.

Motive is irrelevant DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] AC 6532. D need not know the precise details of the offence DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 3 All ER 11403. Intention can be oblique Gnango [2012] 1 AC 827Jogee [2016] UKSC 9 It is NOT sufficient for a secondary party to be convicted if s/he does not intend the principal to commit the offence.

A secondary party to a crime must assist or encourage the principal and must intend that the principal would act with intent such as to perpetuate the consequences as if (for example) a conviction had been obtained lawfully.

Determining the scope of the enterprise

Where D denies knowing that the principal offender would commit the offence, the jury must decide whether or not they accept that evidence based on the facts of the case and the evidence they hearThe “weapons” presumption:Powell: English [1998] AC 147NB – in the light of Jogee note that knowledge of weapon can only be evidence of intentionThe “presumption” therefore would be knowledge of weapon means D intended it would be used and is liable if it is used “Fundamental” difference could rebut the presumption of intention

Potential impact of Jogee?

“If the jury is satisfied that there was an agreed common purpose to commit crime A, and if it is satisfied also that D2 must have foreseen that, in the course of committing crime A, D1 might well commit crime B, it may in appropriate cases be justified in drawing the conclusionthat D2 had the necessary conditional intent that crime B should be committed, if the occasion arose; or in other words that it was within the scope of the plan to which D gave hisassent and intentional support. But that will be a question of fact for the jury in all the circumstances.” (para 94)

R v Anwar and others [2016] EWCA Crim 551







Buckingham Palace, refusing to engage as per requirement to provide an effective remedy



THE HEAD OF STATE - There is no statute of limitations on fraud or wrongful conviction resulting from any bias on the part of a State sanctioned local authority. Where Queen Elizabeth has so far refused to acknowledge the requirement to grant an audience to a subject so requesting. It may be that the future Kings of England may be more amenable: Prince Charles, Duke of Cambridge. Including dealing with the refusal of the present monarch to accede to such request, it being a potential civil and/or criminal offence in itself, as alleged .







The present British judicial system is a blight on the face of humanity in that the Courts, Crown Prosecution Service and Police forces, and further along the chain, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, are not answerable to anyone for their violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on English soil.


There is no right of appeal in the United Kingdom, where the system as it stands gives ultimate control to the Courts and in some cases Single Judges - many of whom are masons who refuse to declare interests, most likely because it would prevent involvement in the very cases that have been brought against innocent citizens, to quash them questioning the present system




The United Kingdom needs to remedy the shortcomings of their present system by providing an effective remedy to those unlawfully convicted on biased and incomplete evidence, that was provided to a jury as some kind of whitewashing mechanism, designed to ensure a conviction where the state prosecutors, police and so-called experts must have known of the flaws in these cases, but worked together regardless of the inconsistencies in evidence to gloss over those factors to deceive the 12 members of the public who made up those juries, into delivering a verdict that the state was after to defeat free speech and challenges to the present corrupt system.










Article 1
Article 2
Article 3

Article 4
Article 5
Article 6

Article 7
Article 8
Article 9

Article 10

Article 11
Article 12

Article 13
Article 14
Article 15

Article 16
Article 17
Article 18












Adolf Hitler


Adolf Hitler

German Chancellor


Herman Goring


Herman Goring



Heinrich Himmler


Heinrich Himmler



Josef Goebbels


Joseph Goebbels

Reich Minister


 Philipp Bouhler


Philipp Bouhler SS

NSDAP Aktion T4


Josef Mengele


Dr Josef Mengele

Physician Auschwitz



Martin Borman


Martin Borman




Adolf Eichmann


Adolph Eichmann

Holocaust Architect



Rudolph Hess


 Rudolf Hess




Erwin Rommel


Erwin Rommel

The Desert Fox



Karl Donitz


Karl Donitz




Albert Speer


Albert Speer

Nazi Architect







Ian Kay


Ian Kay

Assist. Dist. Plan.


Charles Lant


Charles Lant

Chief Executive


Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council


Victorio Scarpa



Timothy Dowsett


Timothy Dowsett

Dist. Secretary


Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage 


Christine Nuttall



David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl


David Phillips




Daniel Goodwin


Daniel Goodwin

Chief Executive



J Douglas Moss


J Douglas Moss





 Kelvin Williams

Dist. Planning




Trevor Scott




David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council


David Whibley




Christine Arnold


Christine Arnold







Beverly Boakes


Beverley Boakes

Legal Secretary



Patrick Coffey


 Patrick Coffey




Julian Black planning consultant


Julian Black





Ashley Brown

Dist. Planning




Derek Holness

Former CEO



Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending Christopher

Black Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw Clifford - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh

Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn - Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek

Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford - Lant Charles - Mercer Richard

Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor

Kevin Stewart - Wakeford Michael. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve



















Wealden District Council's green logo for headed letters      It appears that Wealden District Council advocate pissing and shitting in hedges.   Wealden District Council's green logo for headed letters




This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated 1997 - 2021.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust UK   All trademarks herby acknowledged.


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  FAIR USE NOTICE