{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025847214244686962, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014933946008041356, 'mean_word_length': 4.262839879154079, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
House of Lords

In Thambialt v. The Queen (1966, A.C. 37,46; 30i.C.L 261, Lord Pearce said, "Nice problems may arise when preparations abetting one kind of crime are followed by the execution of a crime of another kind or when the abetting preparations are merely for some criminal but indefinite purpose.... This is a matter which must clearly be affected by the extent and degree of the abettor's activities and their proximity to the actual crime." The difficulty of showing that one aiding and abetting knew what the principal was doing is exemplified in the appeals, first to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland and then to the House of Lords in R. v. Maxwell (1978, 1 W.L.R. 1350; 1363). The appeal to the House of Lords was by leave of the Irish court, which certified a point of law of general public importance in the terms:"If the crime committed by the principle, and actually assisted by the accused, was one ofa number of offences, one of which the accused knew the principle would probably commit, is the guilty mind which must be proved against an accomplice thereby proved against the accused?" The appellant was a member of an organisation which employed firearms and bombs to carry out attacks on Roman Catholics and on their property. He was instructed by amember of his organisation to drive his car to a public house in the vicinity of his home, in order to act as a guide to a car containing three or four men who did not know the locality. He did so and when he reached the public house he left. The men placed a bomb with a burning fuse in the hallway of the house. The defendant was charged with unlawfully and maliciously doing an act with intent to cause an explosion likely to endanger life, contrary