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 sticks , and one of them with a dangerous weapon, a flail, likely to inflict deadly injury, with which he struck one of the poachers, upon which another of them fired and killed him The grand jury were directed to throw out bllls for murder agamst two of the men, one of whom was supposed to have fired the fatal shot, and the whole nine were indicted for manslaughter. There was evidence that they all stood in a row and cried ‘Shoot”Held, that, whether or not the man who fired the shot could be identified, none of the prisoners would be guilty, unless parties to the act of firing, and that though their being in a row, and crying out ‘Shoot’ was evidence that they were parties to the act, it was only evidence, and its effect would depend upon how far all the circumstances showed that the firing was in pursuance of a common design to shoot, or only in consequence of a particular personal encounter.
Held, also, that an approver having given evidence that one of the prisoners fired the shot, a policeman might be asked whether another of them, who had given information, had not stated that it was a different man who fired.
Judges:
ByleS j
Citations:
[1862] EngR 172, (1862) 3 F and F 483, (1862) 176 ER 217
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.286338