R v Betts and Ridley

R v Betts and Ridley (1930) 22 Cr App R 148 is a landmark case in English criminal law from 1930, which established and confirmed that to be convicted of a crime under the doctrine of common purpose, it was not necessary for the accessory to be present actually (meaning at the exact moment nor within sight) when the offence was carried out.[1]

R v Betts and Ridley
Decided1930
Citation(s)22 Cr App R 148

Facts

Victor Betts and Herbert Ridley agreed to rob a man, William Thomas Andrews, as he was on his way to the bank. Their plan was that Betts would bring the man to the ground and snatch his bag. Meanwhile, Ridley would be waiting around the corner in a getaway car, which he had used to help Betts reach the scene.

Betts struck Andrews with such force, with proven intent to cause serious bodily harm, that he died from this. Ridley was charged with aiding and abetting murder and of being an accessory before the act which, if proven, carried the same default sentence.

Judgment

The law was considered by the trial judge who gave appropriate jury instructions. One was convicted of murder, the other of aiding and abetting the murder and, in the alternative, of being an accessory before the act with intention to remain an accessory, after the fact.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal by both men was dismissed.

Sentencing

Both were sentenced to death, which in the case of adults at the time was mandatory at the pronouncement of the verdict of murder (or being an accessory or aiding and abetting a murder).

Execution of Betts

Despite a petition with 12,000 signatures, Betts was hanged at Birmingham Prison on 3 January 1931 by Thomas Pierrepoint.[2] A crowd of several hundred people gathered as a nearby factory sounded its whistle to mark the fateful hour.[3]

Commutation of Ridley

However, the Home Secretary was informed of the case through the prosecution who advised the King to commute the sentence of Ridley to prison for life.

gollark: I successfully launched 6 of these nice overengineered comsats.
gollark: This time only the extra tanks' nosecones exploded. Success?
gollark: Maybe more decouplers, or dedicated small SRBs on the tanks.
gollark: True, true. This means I probably just need to figure out how to get the tanks further away.
gollark: A failed test of the new Ultra Heavy Launch Vehicle, which exploded horribly after detaching its extra fuel tanks.

See also

References
  • Jefferson, Michael (2006). Criminal law. Foundation studies in law (7th ed.). Pearson Education. p. 171. ISBN 1-4058-1225-7.

Notes
  1. Slapper, Gary (23 June 2008). "The cases that changed Britain: 1917-1954". London: Times Online. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
  2. "English & Welsh executions 1900–1931". Capital Punishment U.K.
  3. Cato, Charles. "Foresight of Murder and Complicity in Unlawful Joint Enterprises Where Death Results" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 1, 2008.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.