Secondary Participation - Joint Enterprise Flashcards
Powell and English
No longer a distinction between JE and SP as was seen in Stewart and Schofield
Anderson; Morris
L Parker CJ - when P does something unplanned, D will be liable where he a. Knew that P could commit the AR of the other offence with the requisite MR and b. P’s act must be within the scope of the JE - ‘contemplation principle’
Gnango
‘Parasitic accessorial liability’ where D and P go on a common venture, P kills V - both liable
Mohan v R
JE may apply where two or more people are present but it is not clear who committed AR
Rahman
Foresight is of possibility not probability - therefore not, during the course of the JE, the realisation that P1 WOULD kill with requisite MR but that he MIGHT do so
Powell and English (dangerousness) - fundamentally different rule
Important to know whether D knew P was armed - if D had knowledge of the weapon in advance then foresight might be easier to prove–Where P kills with a weapon that D did not know he had therefore did not foresee, not guilty of murder – if he DID know then must look at DANGEROUSNESS of weapon knife and gun are the same
O’Brien
P will only be liable for murder with AR and MR - P2 does NOT need intent, nor does he have to ‘agree to’ or ‘authorise’ the action - providing he 1. Participated in JE, 2. Foresaw that P might kill with requisite MR then he will be liable
Gnango (transferred malice)
Highly complicated, the court found that D was either an SP to his own attempted murder or a joint P - at all events liable para 71 – Ashworth has said that SP is ‘an example of the CL running wild’ but it is not difficult to see the policy issues in this decision
Gamble
P doing an entirely different act, which is not foreseen by D, will go outside the scope of JE e.g. rape instead of planned robbery
Webb
A frolic of one’s own, where P departs from the JE, D will not be liable
Gilmour
Where D only foresees P committing GBH with intent he can be guilty of manslaughter and no more
Thornton v Mitchell
Where the AR is not proved of P then D cannot be liable
Millward
Where P is not guilty because no MR or a valid defence, D can still be guilty of the full offence
Baker
To withdraw from a JE, D must do so at a sufficiently early stage, communicate it unequivocally to the other P(s) and do all he reasonably can to avert commission - withdrawal is a jury Q
Mitchell
Where violence is spontaneous, merely walking away is sufficient
