The Theory of Criminal Contribution between Principal and Accessorial Liability: A Fundamental and Applied Comparative Study Under Articles (99–104) of the Libyan Penal Code and Supreme Court Rulings

Abstract

This study examines the Theory of Criminal Contribution within the Libyan legal framework, providing an in-depth analytical reading of Articles (99–104) of the Penal Code, supported by the rich judicial heritage established by the Libyan Supreme Court rulings. The research problem lies in the precise distinction between the legal statuses of those contributing to a crime. Thus, the study primarily aims to clarify the criteria for distinguishing between the Principal Actor (the one with the essential role) and the Accomplice (the one with the accessorial role).

The study deconstructs and analyzes the three modes of participation defined by the legislator: Instigation, Agreement, and Assistance, highlighting the material and mental elements of each. It also dedicates an analytical space to define the limits of an accomplice's liability for "probable consequences" of a crime—a complex area requiring a delicate balance between criminal intent and the resulting outcome. Furthermore, the study addresses the specificity of cooperation in non-intentional (negligent) crimes, as an exceptional form of multiple contributors that raises issues regarding the unity of the mental bond between offenders.

The study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to legal texts, coupled with a judicial analysis of relevant criminal appeals, while providing brief comparative references to Egyptian Law to ground shared concepts between the two schools. The study concludes that the Libyan judiciary has played a pivotal and sovereign role in regulating the concepts of "Criminal Agreement" and "Probable Consequences." It has succeeded in formulating judicial safeguards that prevent the over-extension of criminal attribution, thereby ensuring the desired balance between the requirements of effective punishment and the protection of society, and the firmly established principle of "Individualization of Criminal Responsibility