National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
Aiding and abetting and necessary mens rea
Facts
M, who worked for a haulier firm, had his lorry filled up at a National Coal Board (NCB) colliery. He then drove to a weighbridge where the operator told him that his load was overweight. M, nevertheless, accepted the risk of taking the overload. He was later stopped by the police. His firm was subsequently convicted of violating the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1955. The load was to be taken to a power station of an electricity authority to whom the NCB had to supply coal – so the NCB was charged with aiding and abetting the firm. The NCB appealed.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
The NCB argued that knowledge of the overload did not establish an intention to assist the offence. It relied on R v Coney when arguing that a shared purpose was necessary. The court also had to decide when ownership of the coal passed, and whether issuing the weighbridge ticket was voluntary assistance rather than merely failing to prevent another person’s offence.
Decision/Outcome
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal by a majority. Lord Goddard CJ and Devlin J held that ownership passed when the weighed quantity was accepted and the ticket handed over. The operator completed that transaction knowing the lorry would be driven overloaded.
Devlin J required intention to assist as well as knowledge of the circumstances. He distinguished that intention from a desire or motive to further the crime. The NCB called no defence evidence to rebut the inference drawn from the voluntary assistance.
Slade J dissented. He considered that the prosecution had to prove a purpose of assisting or encouraging the offence, and found the evidence insufficient. He would have quashed the conviction.
