Withdrawal from the Bureau de Change Robbery
Four friends-Ayo, Bola, Chidi and Dayo-agree to rob a Bureau de Change at 7 p.m. Chidi provides the security layout and buys two SIM cards used for coordination. At 5:30 p.m., Chidi tells Ayo, 'I am out; I want nothing to do with this,' returns his share of the advance, and goes to a church vigil. He does not retrieve the SIM cards or tell the BDC or police. At 7:15 p.m., Ayo and Bola enter the BDC; Dayo waits in Chidi's car, which Chidi had lent him two days earlier without knowing the plan. Ayo shoots the guard dead when the guard grabs Bola. The guard, 45, dies at the scene. Chidi is arrested next day. The prosecution charges all four with conspiracy to rob and murder.
1. Was Chidi's withdrawal effective to avoid liability for conspiracy? Discuss communication, timing, and neutralization.
Read the worked answer
Conspiracy is complete when two or more persons agree to commit an offence; a later withdrawal does not normally erase liability for the conspiracy itself. Chidi's statement at 5:30 p.m. was communicated to Ayo, one co-conspirator, and he returned his advance, which helps him. But the agreement had already been formed, and he had supplied the security layout and SIM cards.
Withdrawal from a continuing common purpose is effective only if it is timely, communicated to the others, and, where the withdrawing party supplied material assistance, he takes reasonable steps to neutralize that assistance. Chidi did none of the latter: he did not retrieve the SIM cards, warn the BDC, or notify the police. His going to a vigil is not enough. Communication only to Ayo, not to Bola or Dayo, is also a weakness.
For the conspiracy charge, the better view is that Chidi remains liable: the agreement was already complete and his prior assistance was not neutralized. A court might treat the communication as effective for the substantive crimes if it finds genuine dissociation, but that does not automatically wipe out the conspiracy.
2. What is Chidi's liability for the guard's murder under common purpose? Does lending the car change the analysis?
Read the worked answer
Under the common-purpose rule, where persons prosecute an unlawful purpose in concert and a probable consequence of that purpose is the commission of another offence, each is liable for that offence. Armed robbery of a BDC creates a real risk that a guard will be shot. Ayo, who fired, is liable for murder. Bola is liable if the shooting was a probable consequence of the robbery. Dayo, the getaway driver, is also within the common purpose because he remained part of the enterprise.
Chidi is different. If his withdrawal was effective, he is not liable for the murder, because he was not present and had dissociated before the killing. But the withdrawal is doubtful: he supplied the layout and SIMs and did not neutralize them, so the prosecution can argue his assistance remained operative. The car loan does not by itself make him liable: he lent it two days earlier without knowledge of the plan. Liability would have to rest on his earlier participation, not on the car. If the court finds the withdrawal ineffective, Chidi is liable for murder as a probable consequence; if effective, he escapes the murder charge but may still face conspiracy.