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Held: In considering whether a person had withdrawn, there must usually be some act and not merely a mere mental change of intention or physical change of place by the person contending he had withdrawn. The jury should be directed that they must be satisfied (a) that the fatal injuries were sustained when the joint enterprise was continuing and that the defendant was still acting within that joint enterprise, and (b) that the acts which caused the death were within the scope of the joint enterprise.
Judges:
Otton LJ
Citations:
[1990] Crim LR 496, (1988) 163 JP 75
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
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 – Mitchell and Another, Regina v CACD 4-Nov-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.277526
