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 withdrawal must be given in order to give the principal offenders the opportunity to desist rather than complete the crime. This must be so even in situations of spontaneous violence unless it is not practicable or reasonable so to communicate as in the exceptional circumstances pertaining in Mitchell where the accused threw down his weapon and moved away before the final and fatal blows were inflicted.’
Judges:
Otton LJ, Owen J, Sir Rhys Davies QC
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Crim 8
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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Held: In considering whether a person had withdrawn, there must usually .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 by:
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: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.158658