Joint Enterprise Case Law Update

Kevin Metzger

Barrister

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 [email protected]