(Trinidad and Tobago) The victim was attacked by the two appellants wielding ‘cutlasses’ and died from a particularly serious leg wound. The question arose ‘whether each of the appellants [could] be held responsible for the leg wound, when it may have been inflicted by the other of them.’
Held: The appeal failed on the basis of joint criminal enterprise. Lord Pearson said: ‘both the appellants were armed with cutlasses, both were attacking [the victim], and both struck him. It is impossible on the facts of this case to contend that the fatal blow was outside the scope of the common intention. The two appellants were attacking the same man at the same time with similar weapons and with the common intention that he should suffer grievous bodily harm.’
Each of the appellants ‘was present, and aiding and abetting the other of them in the wounding’, and it was unnecessary to show which accused person personally performed the acts.
Judges:
Lord Pearson
Citations:
[1966] UKPC 3, [1966] UKPC 24, [1967] 2 All ER 58, [1967] 2 WLR 676
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.445109