According to The People (AG) v. Ryan (1966), what is the liability of a person merely present at a crime?

In The People (AG) v. Ryan (1966), the court established that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not by itself impose criminal liability on an individual. For a person to be held guilty, it is necessary for them to actively participate in the crime or to demonstrate some form of complicity or intent to commit the offense. This is a crucial principle in criminal law that emphasizes the need for evidence of participation or intent, rather than simply being an observer or bystander.

The case illustrates the distinction between passive observation and active involvement. Individuals who are only present and do not take part in the criminal activity cannot be convicted based on their mere presence, as there is no actionable conduct to establish their guilt. This underscores the importance of the mens rea (mental state) required for establishing criminal liability. Consequently, being present at a crime without any further involvement does not suffice for criminal charges.