LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Blakley and Sutton v DPP* (1991) - Procuring an Offence
This study guide focuses on the legal concept of "procuring an offence," specifically addressing the mens rea (guilty mind) required for such a charge, as illustrated by the case of Blakley Sutton v DPP* (1991).


I. Case Summary: Blakley and Sutton v DPP (1991)
  • Facts: B and S secretly added vodka to D's drink. Their intention was to prevent D from driving home, as they believed D would not knowingly drive under the influence of alcohol. However, D left before B and S could inform him about the laced drink.
  • Outcome: B and S were found not guilty of procuring an offence.


II. Key Legal Principles & Holdings
The Court in Blakley and Sutton v R 1991) established crucial clarifications regarding the mens rea for procuring an offence:
  1. Avoidance of "Recklessness": The term "recklessness" should generally be avoided when determining the mens rea for procuring an offence. This suggests a higher threshold of intent is required than mere recklessness.
  2. Intentional Action Required (McCullough J.): Procuring an offence cannot be committed through "inadvertent recklessness." Instead, the accused must have:
    • Contemplated: That their act "would or might bring about or assist the commission of the principal offence."
    • Prepared to Act: Been "prepared, nevertheless, to do his own act."
    • Intentional Act: "Done that act intentionally."
  3. "Intention or Willing Acceptance" (Bingham LJ.): Bingham LJ's interpretation of "procure" "imports the notion of intention or at least willing acceptance of a contemplated result." This further emphasizes the need for a conscious and deliberate mental state.


III. Critical Question for Understanding Mens Rea
The case raises an important question regarding the scope of "willing acceptance":
  • Does a mens rea of 'willing acceptance' (as per Bingham LJ) extend beyond mere knowledge and foresight, so as to capture the notion of purpose?
    • Implication: This question highlights the distinction between simply foreseeing a potential outcome (knowledge/foresight) and actively desiring or aiming for that outcome (purpose). The judgment suggests that "willing acceptance" leans closer to purpose than to mere foresight, demanding a more active endorsement of the outcome.


IV. Study and Application Points
  • Distinguish Procuring from Other Forms of Participation: Understand that "procuring" requires a specific mens rea that is distinct from, for example, aiding and abetting where recklessness might suffice for certain offences.
  • Focus on the Defendant's Mental State: When analyzing a procuring scenario, meticulously examine what the defendant knew, contemplated, and intended at the time of their actions.
  • The "Would or Might Bring About" Test: This phrase from McCullough J. is critical. It indicates that the defendant does not need to be certain the offence will occur, but must at least contemplate the possibility and proceed regardless.
  • "Willing Acceptance" as a High Bar: Bingham LJ's "willing acceptance" suggests that simply foreseeing an outcome is not enough; there must be a conscious endorsement or acceptance of that outcome as a consequence of one's actions.
  • Avoid Using "Recklessness" Loosely: Remember the explicit instruction from the court to avoid using "recklessness" when discussing the mens rea for procuring an offence.
By understanding these principles and the nuances of the Blakley and Sutton v DPP case, you will be well-equipped to analyze situations involving the procuring of criminal offences.

​
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law