Joint Enterprise: Foresight of Associate's Actions
| Author | Annabelle James,Cath Crosby |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2008.72.5.520 |
| Published date | 01 October 2008 |
| Date | 01 October 2008 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Joint Enterprise: Foresight of Associate’s Actions
R vRahman; Akram; Amin; Ali [2008] UKHL 45
Keywords Joint enterprise; Accessory; Foresight; Jury Direction;
Intention
The four appellants (hereafter referred to as R) were convicted of the
murder of Tyrone Clarke (V) at Leeds Crown Court on 4 March 2005.
They had been a part of a group of individuals who had chased and
attacked V and others with a variety of weapons which included metal
bars and at least one knife. In the course of the attack, V sustained three
stab wounds, the evidence suggesting that the first two wounds were
probably caused by the same knife using similar movements and that it
was possible that one knife had been used to inflict all three wounds.
One of the wounds penetrated to a depth of 8 cm, requiring severe force
and causing ‘massive haemorrhage, rapid collapse, rapid unconscious-
ness and death’ (at [3]). This was stated to be the principal injury of
the deceased and one from which he stood no chance of survival. One
of the other wounds was also stated to be a potentially fatal wound
whilst the third was to the soft tissue in his left shoulder. It was not
alleged that any of the appellants had inflicted the fatal injuries; they
were convicted for their part in the joint enterprise that had led to the
murder of V.
The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal ([2007] EWCA Crim
342, [2007] 1 WLR 2191) who upheld their convictions on 23 February
2007. In the instant case, they appealed this decision to the House of
Lords.
The appellants argued that they would only be guilty of murder if
they had foresight of the principal’s intention to kill, adopting the
approach as advocated in R v Powell and English [1999] 1 AC 1. The
respondents on the other hand argued that foresight was only relevant
as to the principal’s actions as opposed to his thoughts at the time.
The question posed to the House of Lords was as follows:
If in the course of a joint enterprise to inflict unlawful violence a principal
party killed with an intention to kill which was unknown to and unfore-
seen by a secondary party, the principal’s intention was relevant:
(i) to whether the killing was within the scope of a common purpose to
which the secondary party was an accessory;
(ii) to whether the principal’s act was fundamentally different from the
act or acts which the secondary party foresaw as part of the joint
enterprise.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE CONVICTIONS
, the
answer to both (i) and (ii) was ‘No’.
If A, in embarking on a joint enterprise with B, realised that B might
kill, with the mens rea for murder, and continues to participate in that
360 The Journal of Criminal Law (2008) 72 JCL 360–363
doi:1350/jcla.2008.72.5.520
To continue reading
Request your trial