"Before you can convict A of counselling and/or procuring B to commit the offence of ... you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:

  1. That B committed the offence;
  2. That A ordered, advised, encouraged or persuaded him to do it

  3. or
  4. That A procured him to do it, that is, set out to cause B to do it (directly or indirectly) and did cause B to do it.

(In the case of counselling, as distinct from procuring, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the counselling was a substantial cause of the commission of the offence. E.g. the counsellor may not know which house is to be burgled or person is to be murdered)

(The counselling and/or procurement must be continuing. If A changed his mind before B's commission of the offence and expressly instructed B not to do it, A is not guilty.)"


(1)   For commission of a crime different from the one counselled or procured see ARCHBOLD 18-24.

(2)   As with aiders and abettors, though the principles governing liability as a counsellor and/or procurer are the same whatever the offence, it is usually necessary to consider their application in the context of the primary offence.

(3)   This direction will be appropriate to those cases where a defendant is expressly charged with counselling or procuring, rather than where he is jointly indicted as a principal by virtue of the doctrine of joint enterprise. In the latter case a direction based upon 2.7 Joint enterprise will be appropriate.

ARCHBOLD 2010: 17-67 to 73 and 18-20 to 25

BLACKSTONE 2010: A 5.1 to 15.