The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. There had been a joint violent attack, but each said they did not know that the principle assailant carried and would use a knife, and said the judge’s directions on joint enterprise were inadequate, in not requiring the jury to found that they had anticipated an intent to murder rather than only an intent cause serious bodily harm.
Held: The case was a good example of the escalation which takes place in criminal enterprises. The jury had to be sure that the principal had unlawfully caused the death, intending to kill him or cause him really serious bodily harm, and then also that the defendant played some part in the attack. The court set out a series of logical steps through which a court might take a jury. The appeals were dismissed.
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Gibbs J, Roderick Evans J
Citations:
Times 02-Mar-2007, [2007] EWCA Crim 342, [2007] 1 WLR 2191
Links:
Citing:
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 by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258448