LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Common Intention – Whether Escaping Lawful Arrest Part of Common Design
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the appellants after their meeting proceeded directly to execute their common design armed with a gun, and that gun was used in the course of the execution of their common intention to facilitate the escape of the gang, the straight answer is that the appellants had intended, if necessary, to use force in effecting their common design. Force they did eventually use and they must in law be held criminally responsible for their conduct.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alarape & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-872000(SC) at p. 27; Paras A–C.
"Where the appellants after their meeting proceeded directly to execute their common design armed with a gun, and that gun was used in the course of the execution of their common intention to facilitate the escape of the gang, the straight answer is that the appellants had intended, if necessary, to use force in effecting their common design. Force they did eventually use and they must in law be held criminally responsible for their conduct."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a group arms itself before executing a common design, the law infers that they intended to use force if necessary—including to facilitate escape. Escape is part of the common design. Using lethal force during escape is a probable consequence of the armed unlawful enterprise. All participants are criminally responsible. The fact that the force was used to avoid arrest does not negate liability; it confirms the foresight of resistance. The inference of intent to use force arises from arming themselves. This prevents accused persons from claiming that escape was separate from the original purpose. The common intention includes ensuring the group’s safety during and after the crime.