R v Gianetto [1997] 1 CAR 1

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, saying the prosecution did not need to specify whether Defendant was accessory or principal and the jury do not need to be unanimous on which basis they are convicting Defendant of murder (since accessories are to be tried as principal offenders under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861).

The important thing is to prove that Defendant had necessary mens rea and actus reus so that Defendant knows the case he has to answer.

CA say any involvement of mere encouragement upwards would suffice.

In trial the judge (with CA’s blessing) said that if a man responded “oh goody” to being told that X would kill his wife, then he was an abettor.