6

This a hypothetical question but one that I think is interesting. If someone was a getaway driver involved in a bank robbery could they be charged for more than reckless driving, would they be an accomplice, or could they be charged with something else?

4
14

In New South Wales, Australia a getaway driver is a “principal in the second degree”

Under s345 of the Crimes Act 1900:

Every principal in the second degree in any serious indictable offence shall be liable to the same punishment to which the person would have been liable had the person been the principal in the first degree.

So, they can (and will) be charged with everything that the guys in the bank are charged with.

7
  • 4
    The most extreme case: The getaway driver would be charged with murder if the police entered the building and one of the bankrobbers were shot. If someone dies in a bankrobbery then the robbers are guilty of murder. Even if it was one of the robbers who died. Even if you are the getaway driver and were not even in the bank. – gnasher729 Mar 13 at 1:06
  • 2
    Why does this answer provide the relevant Australian law? OP did not mention anything about Australia – Cherona Mar 13 at 6:28
  • 12
    @Cherona: The OP also did not mention anything about not Australia. – Jörg W Mittag Mar 13 at 6:58
  • 2
    @JörgWMittag then he should mention that it is an Australian law – Cherona Mar 13 at 9:13
  • 2
    @Cherona even if the OP had requested a jurisdiction, answered from any other jurisdiction are encouraged on this site. The site exists not only to answer individual’s questions, but serve as a resource for others. – Dale M Mar 13 at 10:46
8

In the US: conspiracy, complicity, plus any statutes that have been engineered to include this kind of thing within their ambit. Depending on the jurisdiction the getaway driver may be on the hook for felony murder, too, if the main bank robbers kill someone while robbing the bank.

8
  • 9
    "the getaway driver may be on the hook for felony murder, too, if the main bank robbers kill someone while robbing the bank" Or if someone dies in a predictable fashion as a result of the robbery, like a security guard shooting at the robbers, missing, and hitting a bystander. – nick012000 Mar 13 at 6:26
  • @nick012000 also true, excellent point – user36183 Mar 13 at 16:23
  • 1
    In Texas, up to and including capital murder. PE7.02(b) "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy." Example: expressnews.com/news/local/article/… – shoover Mar 13 at 21:04
  • 3
    Nick: Or the security guard shooting at a robber and not missing. – gnasher729 Mar 13 at 23:59
  • 1
    @gnasher729 That too – user36183 Mar 14 at 0:39
4

In English law there are no limits to the number of people that can be considered to have primary or secondary liability under the common-law principle of 'Joint Enterprise'. So-call 'Secondaries' (for example getaway drivers) can be charged alongside 'Primaries' (the robber/s themselves) and receive the same sentence, although a cursory look at cases would suggest that they typically receive lighter sentences, especially if they give evidence against the primaries.

Note that where new offences occur during the same crime (such as dangerous driving during an escape that results in injuries to members of the public or police), the CPS would take into account the difficulty of proving that the other parties were actively responsible for their driving decisions.

Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories ) (D2). Each offence will have at least one principal, although it is not always possible or necessary to identify the principal(s).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs or causes the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.

A secondary party is one who aids, abets, counsels or procures (commonly referred to as assists or encourages) D1 to commit the substantive offence, without being a principal offender. However, a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender: s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

Secondary liability principles can be applied to most offences. The principles remain the same, whichever offence they are applied to. The principles are commonly used in offences of violence, theft, fraud and public order.

Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories

-1

could they be charged for more than reckless driving

I'm answering for just English law. Richard's answer doesn't mention the cases below, and I don't know if he fully answered just this part of your question. Let me try.

As you can read below, yes, the getaway driver can be CHARGED for robbery, but not necessarily convicted.

More recently, a similar approach was taken in Mitchell.304 Here D was one of a gang of thieves who, having crashed their getaway car, violently hijacked V’s BMW, eventually abandoning it a few miles away on the road with its hazard lights flashing. For this D was convicted of robbery—a crime which, as we explain in Chapter 14, is theft aggravated by violence. Having referred to Lloyd [[1985] QB 829], the Court of Appeal quashed D’s robbery conviction on the ground that there was no underlying theft. In this case, D did not intend V to lose her car permanently, and his intention to take it temporarily could not be converted into an intention permanently to deprive by invoking section 6(1).

304[2008] EWCA Crim 850.

Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law 2019 7 edn. p 577.

1
  • 2
    Isn't the robbery charge in this case with respect to the BMW (carjacking)? The non-conviction is purely based on that carjacking for the purpose of fleeing does not suffice for a theft charge (therefore cannot be a robbery), thus irrelevant to OP's question. This says nothing about whether the driver is or is not jointly or partly responsible for the thefts (from telephone kiosks, apparently) the gang had allegedly committed. – xngtng Mar 14 at 21:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.