Joint Enterprise Case Law Update May 2020

Speaker: Kevin Metzger
Chambers: Great James Street Chambers

Jogee
Is the Parasitic Accessory Liability doctrine now a thing of the past?
Did R v Jogee put paid to unfair joint enterprise convictions?
Does an overwhelming supervening act exculpate liability?
Judgement Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Chan Wing-Siu
Citing R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808]
Harper v The Queen [2019] EWCA Crim 343
Ali Tas v The Queen [2018] EWCA Crim 2603
Sir Brian Leveson
Collison (1831)
Spraggett (1960) (para 25 Jogee)
Anderson and Morris (paras 31 to32 Jogee)
Overwhelming Supervening Event
Chan Wing-Siu (1985)
Slack [1989]
Wakely[1990]
Powell & English
Departing from Chan Wing-Siu (paras 80 – 84)
Restatement of principles – (para 88 – 99 Jogee)
Powell and English [1999] 1 AC 1., where it was determined that:
It is sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to have realised that in the course of the joint enterprise the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Overwhelming Supervening Event
Ali Tas
Harper
Jogee
Restatement of principles – (para 88 – 99 Jogee)
(Para 90 Jogee) – The second issue is likely to be whether the accessory intended to encourage or assist D1 to commit the crime, acting with whatever mental element the offence requires of D1.
(Para 91 Jogee) – The court noted that it will ‘…therefore in some cases be important when directing juries to remind them of the difference between intention and desire.’
You can contact Kevin Metzger via clerks@greatjamesstreet.co.uk

© Copyright 2020 Law Friends Society. All Rights Reserved