Joint Enterprise in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Anderson; R v Morris
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 02 Mayo 1966

    He would put the principle of law to be invoked in this form: that where two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise, that that includes liability for unusual consequences if they arise from the execution of the agreed joint enterprise but (and this is the crux of the matter) that if one of the adventurers goes beyond what has been tacitly agreed as part of the common enterprise, his co-adventurer is not liable for the consequences of that unauthorised act.

  • Ian Brown and Another v The State
    • Privy Council
    • 29 Enero 2003

    The simplest form of joint enterprise, in the context of murder, is when two or more people plan to murder someone and do so. If both participated in carrying out the plan, both are liable. It does not matter who actually inflicted the fatal injury. This might be called the paradigm case of joint enterprise liability. The most common example is a planned robbery, in which the participants hope to be able to get what they want without killing anyone, but one of them does in fact kill.

  • R v Powell (Anthony Glassford); R v English (Philip); R v Daniels (Antonio Eval)
    • House of Lords
    • 30 Octubre 1997

    It is just that a secondary party who foresees that the primary offender might kill with the intent sufficient for murder, and assists and encourages the primary offender in the criminal enterprise on this basis, should be guilty of murder. Experience has shown that joint criminal enterprises only too readily escalate into the commission of greater offences. In order to deal with this important social problem the accessory principle is needed and cannot be abolished or relaxed.

    As the unforeseen use of the knife would take the killing outside the scope of the joint venture the jury should also have been directed, as the Court of Appeal held in Reg. v. Anderson, that English should not be found guilty of manslaughter. As the unforeseen use of the knife would take the killing outside the scope of the joint venture the jury should also have been directed, as the Court of Appeal held in Reg. v. Anderson, that English should not be found guilty of manslaughter.

  • R v S (MN) and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 15 Julio 2010

    Further, as a matter of principle, the liability of D2 in the third type of joint enterprise scenario, here under discussion, rests, as all these citations show, on his having continued in the common venture of crime A when he realises (even if he does not desire) that crime B may be committed in the course of it.

  • R v Mendez (Reece) and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 22 Marzo 2010

    In our judgment the proposition stated in paragraph 45 is both sound in principle and consistent with Powell and English and Rahman. It would not be just that D should be found guilty of the murder of V by P, if P's act was of a different kind from, and much more dangerous than, the sort of acts which D intended or foresaw as part of the joint enterprise.

  • R v Jogee
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 2016

    What matters is whether D2 encouraged or assisted the crime, whether it be murder or some other offence. He need not encourage or assist a particular way of committing it, although he may sometimes do so. Knowledge or ignorance that weapons generally, or a particular weapon, is carried by D1 will be evidence going to what the intention of D2 was, and may be irresistible evidence one way or the other, but it is evidence and no more.

See all results
  • The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2016
    ... ... Where there are joint office-holders in insolvency proceedings, delivery of a document to one of ... 283A(2) or 283A(4) of the Act, or under section 261(8) of the Enterprise Act 2002 , the trustee must, within five business days of the vesting, ... ...
  • Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011
    • Scotland
    • 1 de Enero de 2011
    ... ... section 7B(2) (a) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989F13Integration joint boards established under section 9(2) of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) ... inserted (16.10.2019) by South of Scotland Enterprise Act 2019 (asp 9), s. 24(2), sch. 2 para. 7; S.S.I. 2019/308, reg. 2 # F3 ... ...
  • National Security and Investment Act 2021
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2021
    ... ... 31: Interaction with CMA functions under Part 3 of Enterprise Act 2002 ... (1) This section applies at any time when a final order is ... Trigger events: holding of interests and rights ... Joint interests ... (1) If two or more persons each hold an interest or right ... ...
  • Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 2001
    ... ... ) persons who are or who propose to become participators with A in a joint enterprise;(d) any person who is solicited by A with a view to the ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Joint Enterprise
    • No. 79-5, October 2015
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    • 0000
    All forms of secondary liability require justification as an exception to the rule that one should not be held criminally liable for the actions of another. Such a justification is particularly dif...
  • Joint Enterprise Murder
    • No. 80-3, June 2016
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    • 0000
    The law on joint enterprise murder has been harsh on secondary parties and in R v Jogee the Supreme Court attempts to alleviate this harshness by reversing an incomplete and erroneous reading of th...
  • Joint Criminal Enterprise
    • No. 73-4, July 2010
    • The Modern Law Review
    The doctrine of joint criminal enterprise is in disarray. Despite repeated judicial scrutiny at the highest level, the doctrine's scope, proper doctrinal basis and function in relation to other mod...
  • Joint Enterprise Liability as Omissions
    • No. 80-2, April 2016
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    • 0000
    This article argues that joint enterprise liability should be conceptualised under the doctrine of omissions as conceived in the recent case of Evans. As such, liability under joint enterprise is t...
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT