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 after they had armed themselves with a knuckleduster and CS sprays after which the attack was resumed and the death ensued.
Held: The issue was as to whether the incidents should be seen as two or as one. The defendant was part of the first. The judge had directed that the defendant had to have given some overt indication of her withdrawal. The direction was correct and the appeal failed.
Lord Justice Thomas
[2008] EWCA Crim 2552, [2009] Crim LR 287, [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 31
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – O’Flaherty and Others, Regina v CACD 10-Mar-2004
It is for the jury to decide the question as to what the defendant had joined up to in a joint enterprise case by considering the knowledge and actions of those involved. The jury would have to be sure before the defendant was convicted that the . .
Cited – Rahman 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
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 Micthell and King CACD 1988
The court considered whether the defendants had continued to be involved in a criminal action where they were originally involved, but claimed to have ceased involvement.
Held: In considering whether a person had withdrawn, there must usually . .
Cited – Regina v Robinson CACD 3-Feb-2000
Otton LJ said as to whether a defendant continued to be involved in a joint enterprise: ‘it can only be in exceptional circumstances that a person can withdraw from a crime he has initiated. Similarly in those rare circumstances communication of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.277391