The prosecutor appealed against a successful appeal by the defendant against his conviction for murder. He and an opponent had engaged in a street battle using guns. His opponent had shot an innocent passer by. The court was now asked as to whether the doctrine of transferred malice could be applied alongside that of joint enterprise. The prosecutor had argue for a parasitic accessory liability, but this was rejected on the baiss that the defendant could not be said to be on a joint venture wth the person attacking him. Each had been on their own separate, individual and diametrically opposed enterprises.
Held: The conviction was restored (Lord Kerr dissenting). An affray need involve no common purpose, and may therefore provide a foundation for parasitic accessory liability. However that issue did not arise here. The prosecution had relied upon such liability on the basis that the respondent could not aid and abet his own attempted murder, by virtue of the victim rule. The meaning of ‘victim’ under the 1977 Act should be restricted to persons of a class that the relevant Act is intended to protect. The defendant could not therefore claim its benefit.
Lord Phillips, President, Lord Brown, Lord Judge, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson
 2 All ER 129,  2 WLR 17,  1 Cr App R 18,  1 AC 827,  UKSC 59, UKSC 2010/0165
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 8, Criminal Law Act 1977 2(1)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Gnango, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He had engaged in a street battle using guns. A bullet from an opponent killed an innocent passer by. The court was asked whether the principles of joint venture and transferred malice could . .
Cited – Regina v Coney QBD 18-Mar-1882
A public prize-fight was unlawful. Spectators were tried at Berkshire County Quarter Sessions with common assault. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions directed the jury to convict the spectators of common assault on the basis that having stayed to . .
Cited – Brown and Isaac v The State PC 29-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder on a joint enterprise basis.
Held: If more than one person participates, in whatever capacity, in attacking a victim, each . .
Cited – Ultzen v Nicols 1894
The plaintiff went to eat in the defendant’s restaurant. He gave over his coat to the waiter, who hung it on a hook. It was stolen.
Held: The defendant was liable as a bailee for reward. He was guilty of negligence in the care of the coat. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) CACD 1981
The court considered a reference on a point of law as to whether consent could be a defence to a charge of assault arising out of a fight in a public place to which the other party consented.
Held: Lord Lane CJ said: ‘It is not in the public . .
Cited – Regina v Tyrrell 1894
The court considered whether a girl between the ages of 13 and 16 could be convicted of aiding and abetting a male who had had unlawful sexual intercourse with her.
Held: A person for whose protection an offence has been created cannot be . .
Cited – A and Others (Joint Enterprise) v Regina CACD 15-Jul-2010
Hughes LJ analysed the authorities on the requirements to establish joint venture criminal liability saying: ‘the liability of D2 . . rests, as all these citations show, on his having continued in the common venture of crime A when he realises (even . .
Cited – Regina v Sharp; Regina v Johnson CCA 1957
There had been a fight between the two defendants in a public place in the presence of a large number of spectators. They were jointly indicted on a charge of affray and convicted. They appealed.
Held: The court considered the offence of . .
Cited – Rex v Hopwood CCA 1913
A person who, in an attempt tp commit suicide, instead kills another in that act, can be guilty of murder under the doctrine of transferred malice. . .
Cited – Regina v Button; Regina v Swain HL 1966
An affray may be carried out on private premises as well as in public places.
Lord Gardiner LC spoke of the revival of the ancient offence of affray, saying: ‘It was further argued that no practical purpose is served by re-establishing the law . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Young And Webber 22-Sep-1838
When, upon a previous arrangement, and after there has been time for the blood to cool, two persons meet with deadly weapons, and one of them is killed, the party who occasions the death is guilty of murder, and the seconds also are equally guilty, . .
Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) CACD 29-Nov-1995
The defendant was convicted of murder. He stabbed a pregnant woman, causing the premature birth and then death of her child.
Held: Murder is a possible charge for a wound inflicted on an infant en ventre sa mere, but dying after a live birth. . .
Cited – Pagett, Regina v CACD 3-Feb-1983
Jury Directions on Causation
The appellant shot at police officers who were attempting to arrest him for various serious offences. The appellant had with him a 16 year old girl who was pregnant by him. Against her will he used her body to shield him from any retaliation by the . .
Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section . .
Cited – Regina v Moloney HL 21-Mar-1984
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted.
Lord Bridge of Harwich discussed the case of Hyam: ‘But looking on their facts at the decided cases . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd HL 27-Feb-2008
The claimant’s husband had committed suicide. She sought damages for financial loss from his former employers under the 1976 Act. He had suffered a severe and debilitating injury working for them leading to his depression and suicide. The employers . .
Cited – Regina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
Cited – Regina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad HL 23-Jan-1996
The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process.
Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an . .
Cited – Regina v Hancock and Shankland HL 27-Feb-1985
Two miners on strike had pushed a concrete block from a bridge onto a three-lane highway on which a miner was being taken to work by taxi. The concrete block hit the taxi and killed the driver. The defendants were charged with murder. They said they . .
Cited – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.465939