joint enterprise Flashcards
define joint enterprise
- Joint enterprise is where two or more people agree to commit an offence, each party is a principal offender.
- Each participant is fully liable for the criminal acts of the other provided the acts emanate out of the agreement.
is a party liable for the actions of others that go beyond what was agreed ?
a party is not liable for the actions of others that go beyond what was agreed.
describe what the court of appeal held in the case of R v Anderson and Morris [1966]
Where there is an agreement to carry out an offence, all parties to that agreement are liable. But where one party goes further than what was agreed and does something else that was not foreseeable to the other parties, they are not liable for this unsanctioned activity.
What is meant by – when one or more of the part goes beyond the scope of the agreement?
- It is necessary for the parties to stay within the scope of the agreement or the doctrine will not succeed
– People (DPP) v Cumberton (1994) the test was outlined as what was ‘agreed between the parties and whether what happened was within the common design’
what are the facts of the case DPP v Murray [1977] ?
- The defendants, a married couple, were involved in a bank robbery.
- They were pursued by Gardai and Mrs Murray shot and killed a Garda.
- Both were convicted of capital murder
- On appeal, the supreme court held that there had been a common design in relation to the robbery and the use of violence and also with regard to murder but that there was no common design with regard to capital murder because there was no evidence to suggest that they had agreed on the use of violence against the Garda.
what is the difference between the case DPP v Pringle [1981] , DPP v Eccles and DPP v Murray [1977]
The difference between these cases and the Murray case is that in Pringle and Eccles, there had been some evidence of the intention to overcome the Gardai using whatever force was necessary, whereas no such evidence existed in Murray.
What type of agreement must the parties have come to – e.g. explicit, tacit?
Where a party goes beyond what was expressly or tacitly agreed – the other parties will
what type of agreement was incorporated into English law?
It authorised that any offence could be part of a joint enterprise provided the secondary foresaw the possibility of the acts performed by the principle
Even if the secondary party had not tacitly or expressly agreed to the collateral offence
Most common law jurisdictions allow abdonment or withdrawal but only in what limited circumstances ?
- Unequivocal communication
2. Undo the contributions they have made
what was held in the case of R v Jensen and Ward [1980]?
It was held that withdrawal should either be communicated or that some positive step should be taken, such as calling the police.
what are the two different opinions on withdrawal or abandonment as a defence
- Once the agreement made (joint enterprise) or encouragement or assistance provided (secondary party participation) the relevant mens rea is committed - reversal cannot occur and therefore liability cannot be abandoned
- It is unjust to treat someone who pulls back from a crime in the same way as someone who completes the substantive offence
- If an accessory calls off the arrangement before the crime is committed, they will not be liable for any offences carried out after they have withdrawn.
what is the overarching consequence of R v Jogee
the mental element for accessories has now been brought back into line with that which is required by principal offenders, prior to Chan Wing-Siu. The mere existence of foresight is no longer conclusive of guilt.
what is the correct approach that the Supreme Court held in relation to joint enterprise
foresight is evidence of an intention to assist a primary offender in furtherance of the crime, however, it is not conclusive of intent
