R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8

KEY POINTS

• Mere foresight, anticipation, or realisation that a co-perpetrator might commit a criminal act, was not sufficient to establish the necessary culpability for complicity. There must be a direct intention to assist or encourage the primary offender in the commission of the offence.

• The requisites of accessorial liability are:

  1. The defendant was in fact a participant, that is, whether he assisted or encouraged the commission of the crime [89]; and

  2. The accessory intended to encourage or assist their co-defendant to commit the crime, acting with whatever mental element the offence requires of the latter [90].

• Foresight does not equate to intent. It only serves as evidence to establish intent.

FACTS

• The appeal involves two similar cases wherein the appellants, Jogee and Ruddock, were convicted of murder for the crime directly committed by their respective co-defendants, despite not having inflicted any direct harm on the victims themselves.

• Their initial convictions were based on the probability of them taking part in the attack and if they had knowledge on the possibility that their co-defendants, who were also convicted of murder, might intend to kill their victims.

• The appellants Jogee and Ruddock were initially found guilty of murder after the trial judges applied the principle established in Chan Wing-Siu. In their appeal, they argue that the doctrine is founded on an erroneous interpretation of previous legal precedents and questionable policy justifications.

COMMENTARY

• The court's ruling in this case marked a departure from the previous understanding and raised the bar for establishing criminal liability in joint enterprise cases.

• The decision in R v Jogee ensures that individuals are not unfairly held responsible for the actions of others unless there is clear evidence of their active involvement and intent to assist or encourage the commission of the offence.

RELATED CASES

• Chan Wing-Siu v R