Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen: PC 21 Jun 1984

The appellant and co-accused were charged with murder. They said they had gone to meet the deceased to collect a debt, but had been attacked with a knife by the deceased. Two of the three had knives and knew of the other knife.
Held: All were taking part in a joint and unlawful enterprise. Each had sufficient intent if they foresaw the possibility of death or serious bodily injury to the accused during the unlawful enterprise, but that had to be shown against each of them.
Sir Robin Cooke described the simplest form of joint enterprise: ‘a person acting in concert with the primary offender may become a party to the crime, whether or not present at the time of its commission, by activities variously described as aiding, abetting, counselling, inciting or procuring it. In the typical case in that class, the same or the same type of offence is actually intended by all the parties acting in concert. In view of the terms of the directions to the jury here, the Crown does not seek to support the present convictions on that ground. The case must depend rather on the wider principle whereby a secondary party is criminally liable for acts by the primary offender of a type which the former foresees but does not necessarily intend.
That there is such a principle is not in doubt. It turns on contemplation or, putting the same idea in other words, authorisation, which may be express but is more usually implied. It meets the case of a crime foreseen as a possible incident of the common unlawful enterprise. The criminal liability lies in participating in the venture with that foresight.
Sir Robin Cooke, Keith of Kinkel, Bridge of Harwich, Brandon of Oakbrook, Templeman LL
[1984] Crim LR 549, [1985] AC 168, [1984] 3 WLR 677, [1984] 3 All ER 877, [1984] UKPC 27, (1985) 80 Cr App R 117, (1984) 81 LSG 216
AppliedDavies v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1954
Half a dozen youths engaged in a fist fight with another group, but one of their number suddenly produced a knife and stabbed one of their opponents to death. One of the prosecution witnesses was a youth named Lawson. He gave evidence of an oral . .
CitedRegina v Anderson; Regina v Morris CACD 1966
The court considered criminal liability under the joint enterprise rule where the principle took the action beyond what had been anticipated. Parker CJ said: ‘It seems to this court that to say that adventurers are guilty of manslaughter when one of . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .
CitedTeiko David Jamel Furbert and Sheldon Eugenio Franks v The Queen PC 23-Mar-2000
PC (Bermuda) The appellants challenged their conviction for murder. Evidence had been admitted of informal and unadmitted conversations with police officers after charge, with the officers notebooks put before . .
ExplainedHui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
CitedRegina v Jenkins and Another CACD 14-Feb-2002
The decision in Smith (Morgan) does not prevent use of the expression ‘the reasonable man’ in the judge’s summing-up, in Weller, when considering how a jury should be directed on provocation, the court plainly regarded the relevant question as being . .
CitedHolder v The State PC 9-Jul-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board granted special leave for the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder and sentence to death. The murder was committed during a violent robbery and the defendant convicted as part of the joint enterprise. He said . .
CitedRahman and Others, Regina v HL 2-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence . .
CitedMitchell and Another, Regina v CACD 4-Nov-2008
The appellant challenged their convictions as ancillary parties to a murder, particularly as to the joint enterprise direction. There had been a scuffle outside a pub. The appellant went away with others to a nearby house, and returned with them . .
CitedRegina v Uddin CACD 19-Mar-1998
A co-accused in a murder by a gang, where the existence of the murder weapon which was used, was outside the expectation of the defendant, need not himself be guilty, because of the different circumstances which applied in his case. . .
CitedJogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
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 directed the jury that he . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.179869