Participation Flashcards
Define ‘joint enterprise’
Joint enterprise is a doctrine of criminal law which permits two or more defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the incident.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Joint%20Enterprise%20Writing%20a%20Wrong%20Turn.pdf
Summarise the research the University of Cambridge did on Joint Enterprise
- 16 year prison study of men convicted on the basis of joint enterprise found that white prisoners were under represented while the % of black prisoners was 3x higher than in the general prison population
- 37% of prisoners convicted of a joint enterprise case were black - a figure almost 3x the proportion of black prisoners in the general prison population (12%)
- Same study: nearly 1 in 5 of those convicted on joint enterprise were 18 or younger when sentenced. All of them were 25 or younger
- Dissatisfaction / alienation caused by joint enterprise played a part in 2012 uprisings
- BUT: police say joint enterprise deter young men from engaging with gangs and has reduced knife crimes
Define ‘derivative (accomplice) liability’
One person’s liability is derived from that of another person, who commits the principal offence.
D is convicted of murder, not just encouraging or assisting
Punishable to the same extent as the principal / main event
Statute for Derivative (Accomplice) Liability
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s. 8 codifies complicity
Define ‘Complicity’ as per the statute
s. 8, Accessories and Abettors Act 1861:
whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the Commission of any indictable offence…shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender
Actus Reus of Complicity
To aid, abet, counsel or procure a principal offence
Define ‘aid’
To help, support or assist
Define ‘abet’
To incite, instigate or encourage
Define ‘counsel’
To advice or encourage
Define ‘procure’
To produce by endeavour
Mens Rea of Complicity
D’s mens rea as to her own conduct:
1) voluntary conduct
2) Intent to assist, encourage or procure the commission by P of the act which constitutes or results in the principal offence, and
D’s mens rea as to P’s conduct:
1) D must intend that P will complete the conduct element of P’s offence
2) D must intend or know the circumstance element of P’s offence and its result, and
3) D must intend that P act with the requisite mens rea
Summarise the case of R v Jogee [2016]
- D and P went to V’s house and started a violent confrontation
- P took a knife from the kitchen and killed V
- D had intended P to confront V with violence, and foresaw the possibility of serious harm to V, but did not intent serious harm to be caused to V
What change(s) did the case of R v Jogee [2016] bring
Previously: D could be guilty of murder, when he foresaw that P would kill V
Now: D can only be found guilty of murder when he intended that his conduct assisted P in killing V.
SC: “the introduction of the foresight rule [in CHan Wing-Sir [1984]] was a wrong turn…the correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence (albeit sometimes strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability”
Mens Rea of Complicity - D’s own conduct
1) D’s own conduct must be intentional (direct or oblique
2) D must intend that her conduct will assist or encourage P (against direct or oblique intent)
3) D must intend to assist or encourage P’s whole offence
For procuring: D must intend to cause the principal offence but need not intend every element
Mens Rea of Complicity - D’s mens rea as to P’s principal offence
see notes and possible situations
