What could a getaway driver be charged with?
<p>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?</p>

<h2>In New South Wales, Australia a getaway driver is a “principal in the second degree”</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a></p>
<p>Under <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s345.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s345</a> of the <em>Crimes Act</em> 1900:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, they can (and will) be charged with everything that the guys in the bank are charged with.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>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.</p>

<p>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 '<em><strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Joint Enterprise</a></strong></em>'. 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.</p>
<p>Note that where <em>new offences</em> 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 <a href="https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/getaway-driver-who-turned-supergrass-265715" rel="nofollow noreferrer">actively responsible</a> for their driving decisions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><sub><sup><a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Secondary Liability: charging decisions on principals and accessories</em></a></sub></sup></p>
</blockquote>

hypothetical