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.

  • David Michael Joyce (by his Litigation Friend Stephanie Tarrant) v (1) Edward Gerald O'Brien (First Respondent) (2) Tradex Insurance Company Ltd (Second Respondent)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 Mayo 2013

    I would formulate the principle as follows: where the character of the joint criminal enterprise is such that it is foreseeable that a party or parties may be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialises, the injury can properly be said to be caused by the criminal act of the claimant even if it results from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the illegal enterprise.

  • Roberts, Stephens and Day
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 22 Junio 2001

    In Powell and English itself a major question was whether a secondary party in a murder case must be shown to have been actuated by the mens rea required in the principal offender, and the question was answered in the negative. The subject matter of a joint enterprise is not a state of mind or intention but an objective act which it is contemplated will or might be done.

  • 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

    Accordingly, in the appeal of English, I consider that the direction of the learned trial judge was defective (although this does not constitute a criticism of the judge, who charged the jury in conformity with the principle stated in Hyde) because in accordance with the principle stated by Lord Parker in Reg. v. Anderson, at p. 120B, he did not qualify his direction on foresight of really serious injury by stating that if the jury considered that the use of the knife by Weddle was the use of a weapon and an action on Weddle's part which English did not foresee as a possibility, then English should not be convicted of murder.

  • 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 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.

See all results
  • 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 ... ...
  • 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 ... ...
  • Local Government in Scotland Act 2003
    • Scotland
    • 1 de Enero de 2003
    ... ... (2) In section 36(20) (power of the fire authorities and joint fire ... boards to sell land but only with ministerial consent) of the ... (e) the chief constable of a police force; ... (f) Scottish Enterprise; ... (g) Highlands and Islands Enterprise; ... (h) Strathclyde Passenger ... ...
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Joint Enterprise
    • No. 79-5, October 2015
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    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
    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
    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