When two or more, one of whom has received the provocation of a blow, are charged with murder, and one of them has received a provocation (as a blow) which would reduce homicide to manslaughter, and it cannot be proved which of them inflicted the fatal blow, neither of them can be convicted of murder, without proof of a common design to inflict the homicidal act, nor of manslaughter, without proof of a common design to inflict unlawful violence. One of two men, being struck by a third, the other incited him to strike in return ; and, after the lapse of several minutes – the assailant having gone away – they both pursued him with that purpose, and it appeared that, without any previous fighting, he was knocked down, and that then one or other of them (it could not be proved which) kicked him in the eye with a heavy iron-clad boot, causing his death Held, that neither of them was guilty of murder, there being no evidence of a common design to kill, or to inflict murderous or felonious violence, but that both were guilty of manslaughter.
Channell B said that: ‘on a charge of murder there must be evidence not only of a common design to commit a felony, but a common design quoad the homicidal act itself’
Judges:
Channell B
Citations:
[1864] EngR 75, (1864) 4 F and F 339, (1864) 176 ER 590
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.281789