# Secondary participation: aiding, abetting, and joint enterprise after Jogee

> **Key takeaway:** s.8 AAA 1861: aid/abet/counsel/procure. MR: intent to assist/encourage + knowledge of essentials. Jogee: foresight evidences intent, not a substitute. Withdrawal must be effective. Presence alone insufficient.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Criminal
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Criminal/secondary-participation
- **Keywords:** secondary participation, joint enterprise, Jogee, aiding and abetting, accessories, withdrawal, Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, parasitic accessorial liability

## What is this about?

Secondary parties may be convicted of an offence committed by a principal if they aid, abet, counsel, or procure it (Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s.8; magistrates' equivalent provisions). The Supreme Court in Jogee restated the mental element for parasitic accessorial liability, rejecting the broader foresight-as-sufficient approach associated with Chan Wing-Siu.

## What is the core rule?

A secondary party must assist or encourage the principal's offence (or procure it) and have the required mental element: generally intent to assist/encourage, with knowledge of the essential matters that make the conduct an offence. After R v Jogee, foresight that the principal might commit the offence is evidence of intent to assist/encourage, not a free-standing mental element that automatically fixes liability for a different crime in a joint venture. Withdrawal requires timely communication and, where appropriate, steps to undo assistance.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Who is principal and who is alleged secondary?
2. What act of assistance, encouragement, or procurement is alleged?
3. Mens rea: intention to assist/encourage; knowledge of essential facts?
4. If a different/more serious offence by P: apply Jogee intent analysis (foresight as evidence only)
5. Any withdrawal defence on the facts?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.8** — Secondary parties may be tried and punished as principals for indictable offences.
- **R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, [2017] AC 387** — Supreme Court restatement: intent to assist/encourage required; foresight is evidence of intent, not equivalent to intent for parasitic accessory liability.
- **R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129; DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350** — Knowledge of the type of offence / essential matters continuum for accessories.
- **R v Rook [1993] 1 WLR 1005** — Withdrawal requires more than mere mental change; effective communication/steps.

## How does this apply in practice?

Post-Jogee appeals out of time face substantial injustice tests. Presence at the scene is not automatically assistance but may be. Procurement has a distinct causal flavour. Always particularise the assistance alleged.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Directing that foresight alone equals intent after Jogee
- Treating mere presence as automatic secondary liability
- Ignoring withdrawal where the defendant walked away mid-venture
- Collapsing inchoate assisting/encouraging (SCA 2007) with secondary liability for a completed offence

## When would a practitioner use this?

Multi-handed violence, group burglaries, and post-Jogee murder/manslaughter accessorial cases.

## Quick reference

s.8 AAA 1861: aid/abet/counsel/procure. MR: intent to assist/encourage + knowledge of essentials. Jogee: foresight evidences intent, not a substitute. Withdrawal must be effective. Presence alone insufficient.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*