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 directed the jury that he would be guilty of murder as an accessory if he had participated in the attack on the victim and realised that his co-defendant might stab the victim with intent to cause him really serious harm. In Ruddock, the direction was that the prosecution had to prove that the defendant and co-defendant had shared a common intention, and that that common intention included a situation where the defendant knew that there was a real possibility that his co-defendant might ‘have a particular intention and with that knowledge, nevertheless, went on to take part’ in the offence.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The law required to be corrected. Liability as an accessory required both conduct mental elements. The conduct was that the accessory had assisted or encouraged the commission of the principal offence. The mental element was an intention to assist or encourage the commission of that crime. Foresight alone that the principal might commit the offence charged was not an intent to assist, and it was not the inevitable yardstick of a common purpose.


Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson, Lord Thomas


[2016] 2 WLR 681, UKSC 2015/0015, [2016] UKSC 8, [2016] WLR(D) 84, [2016] UKPC 7


SC, SC Summary, SC Video, Bailii, WLRD


Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 8


England and Wales


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 . .
Appeal fromJogee, Regina v CACD 11-Jul-2013
The appellant (Jogee) had been convicted of murder, having been present at a murder and having been found to have anticipated and encouraged violence. He appealed against his conviction under the rules of joint enterprise. . .
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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRex v Collison 16-Mar-1831
Two men went out by night with carts to steal apples. They were detected by the landowner’s watchman. One of the thieves attacked him with a bludgeon which he was carrying and caused the man severe injury. The second thief was tried for assault and . .
CitedMacklin, Murphy, And Others’ Case 1838
If several persons act together with a common intent, every act done by each of them in furtherance of that intent is done by all. If a deadly weapon be used an intention to kill is to be inferred – not so from a blow with a fist. From continued . .
CitedRegina v Luck And Others 1862
More than nine men, of whom seven were armed with guns, being out at night in pursuit of game, were met, as they passed through a field, from one wood to another, by a party of gamekeepers, without fire-arms, but who at once assaulted them with . .
CitedRegina v Turner And Another 1864
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 . .
CitedRegina v Skeet and Others 1866
Poachers were stopped by a gamekeeper, who was shot by one of them. Pollock CB explained the law as it affected accessories: ‘ . . the doctrine of constructive homicide . . does not apply where the only evidence is that the parties were engaged in . .
CitedJohnson v Youden KBD 1950
For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements of his acts which constituted the complete crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious.
Lord . .
CitedNational Coal Board v Gamble QBD 1958
M drove a lorry used for carrying coal from the NCB quarries to power station. H was employed by the NCB to operate a weighbridge, providing tickets to drivers as to the weight on board, and aa a delivery note. On this occasion, the lorry was . .
CitedRegina v Spraggett CCA 1960
Three men had been involved in the burglary of a sub-post office. Two of them went into the building while the third waited outside. During the burglary the owner of the shop came on the scene and was knocked down. The third man was also convicted . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Maxwell CCA 1978
The defendant was a member of a terrorist organisation, the Ulster Volunteer Force (‘UVF’). Under UVF instructions he took part in what he knew was a planned military mission, by guiding a car containing three or four other men on a cross country . .
CitedAttorney-General v Able and Others QBD 28-Apr-1983
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing . .
CitedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedRegina v Smith (Wesley) 1963
A group of men set upon a man in a bar and he was stabbed to death.The court considered the law of joint offences. The trial judge had directed the jury: ‘Manslaughter is unlawful killing without an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm. Anybody . .
CitedRegina v Betty 1963
If two men attack another without any intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and during the course of the attack one man forms an intention to kill the victim, and strikes the fatal blow with that intention, he may be convicted of murder . .
CitedDavies 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 . .
CitedChan 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 . .
CitedRegina v Calhaem 1985
Once encouragement or assistance is proved to have been given, the prosecution does not have to go so far as to prove as against an accessory, that it had had a positive effect on the principle offenders conduct or on the outcome . .
CitedRegina v Slack 1989
For a person to be guilty of murder as an accessory it had to be proved that he lent himself to a criminal enterprise involving the infliction of serious injury or death or that he had an express or tacit understanding with the principal that such . .
CitedRegina v Hyde, Sussex, Collins CACD 1990
Lord Lane CJ restated the principle underlying the responsibility of a secondary partner in a joint enterprise: ‘If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless . .
CitedRegina v Wakely 1990
Lord Lane CJ referred to the use of a pick axe handle in a burglary, ‘Foreseeability that the pick axe handle might be used as a weapon of violence was practically indistinguishable from tacit agreement that the weapon should be used for that . .
CitedHui 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoJogee and Ruddock v The Queen PC 18-Feb-2016
(Jamaica) The Court considered the notion of ‘parasitic accessory liability.’ . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.560169