R v JF Alford Transport [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 326
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:29 UTC
Defendants worked for a company and turned a blind eye to their truck drivers working longer hours than was allowed by EC regulations.
In these circumstances CA quashed their convictions as accessories to the offence by saying that passive acceptance did not constitute aiding, abetting etc.
For this there has to be active encouragement or assistance
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Clarkson
Defendants watched X rape a woman and did nothing to stop him. However they did nothing to encourage the rape nor was there evidence to show that they intended to encourage the rape. They were convic...
R v Gianetto
Defendant was charged with murdering V and judge said it was open to jury to convict if they were satisfied that Defendant had at least been an accessory, if not the principal. CA dismissed appeal, s...
NCB v Gamble
A truck driver was allowed to carry excess load of coal by NCB and NCB was tried as an accessory to the offence. CA upheld NCB’s conviction. Stated that to supply someone with an object (e.g. selling...
Smith v Stages
Defendant’s employers told him to go to another region to work and were given the cost of a rail fare but it was not specified how they should travel. The payment arrangements were such that after wo...
R v Bainbridge
Defendant bought equipment for X, which X used in a crime. The judge said that it was sufficient for prosecution to show that D knew of X’s intention to commit a crime of the type which was committed...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.