Joint Enterprise Liability: Recent Developments and Judicial Responses
| Author | Edward Grigg |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318819150 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
Comment
Joint Enterprise Liability:
Recent Developments
and Judicial Responses
Edward Grigg
City University, University of London, UK
Abstract
This article reconsiders the decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 and the merits of joint
enterprise liability. The article is structured in three sections. First, it outlines the background
to the appeal in Jogee and argues that the Supreme Court’s decision is welcome on both
normative and jurisprudential grounds. Second, it considers subsequent academic criticism and
the approaches taken by the High Court of Australia and Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.
Third, it responds to these differing perspectives and suggests that Jogee has left the law in a
more satisfactory state, but that accessorial liability as a whole remains in need of further
clarification.
Keywords
Joint enterprise liability, intention, foresight, complicity
Introduction
In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned 30 years of earlier jurisprudence in its decision in R v Jogee.
1
In
essence, the Court determined that intention, not foresight, was the necessary prerequisite for establish-
ing the mens rea of a secondary party to murder or manslaughter. Since this change in the law, only one
conviction has been successfully appealed: that of Mr John Crilly, whose conviction for murder was
quashed by the Court of Appeal.
2
The difficulty prospective applicants face in appealing their convic-
tions can be explained by the decision in R v Johnson and Others, where the Court of Appeal ruled that
‘substantial injustice’ must be shown to grant leave for out of time appeals.
3
Despite this high threshold,
Corresponding author:
Edward Grigg, The City Law School, City University, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
E-mail: edward.grigg@city.ac.uk
1. [2016] UKSC 8.
2. RvCrilly (John Anthony) [2018] EWCA Crim 168.
3. [2017] 1 Cr App R 12. See further R (on the application of Anthony Davies) vThe Criminal Cases Review Commission [2018]
EWHC 3080 (Admin).
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(2) 128–135
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318819150
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial