Categories
Law

Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

This Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 was introduced to clarify the legal position of those who assist, encourage, or facilitate the commission of a crime. It is therefore a piece of legislation that has had a significant impact on criminal law in England and Wales.

Could a Senior Financial Remedy Judge such as HHJ Farquhar, whilst sitting in Private, have committed a criminal offence under Section 3 of Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 by “encouraging and turning a blind eye” to an allegation of fraud ?

The Rule of Law is clear that “no one is above the law”.

Prior to the introduction of this Act, the law surrounding accomplices was unclear and inconsistent.

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 aimed to address this by providing a clear and consistent framework for dealing with those who aid or encourage the commission of a crime.

The Act consists of three sections, each dealing with a different aspect of criminal liability.

Section 1 deals with those who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence. This section makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, even if the person who aids or encourages the offence does not actually commit the offence themselves.

Section 2 of the Act deals with those who are present at the scene of a crime and who help the person who has committed the offence to escape punishment. This section makes it an offence to assist a person who has committed an offence to avoid arrest, trial or punishment.

Section 3 of the Act deals with those who receive, relieve, comfort or assist a person who has committed an offence, knowing that person to be guilty of that offence. This section makes it an offence to help someone who has committed a crime to evade justice.

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 has been used in a wide range of criminal cases, from minor offences such as shoplifting to more serious crimes such as murder. It has proved to be a useful tool for prosecutors, allowing them to hold not only the principal offender but also those who aided or encouraged the offence to account.

In recent years, the Act has been used in cases involving cybercrime and terrorism. For example, in 2015, a man was charged under Section 1 of the Act for providing material support to ISIS. In this case, the man was not directly involved in any terrorist activities himself, but he was found to have provided financial and logistical support to those who were.

While the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 has been a useful tool for prosecutors, it is not without its critics. Some have argued that the Act is too broad and can be used to prosecute individuals who had only a minor role in a crime.

Others have argued that the Act is outdated and in need of reform to take into account modern technology and the changing nature of criminal activity.

In conclusion, the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 has been an important piece of legislation in the development of criminal law in England and Wales.

Its clear and consistent framework for dealing with accomplices has helped to ensure that those who aid or encourage the commission of a crime can be held accountable for their actions. However, as with any piece of legislation, there is always room for debate and discussion about its effectiveness and potential for reform.


The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.


Latest Articles


Most Popular


You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 9th June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent