R v Jogee [2016]
Share
R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 is a landmark case in the UK which changed the law on joint enterprise, also known as common purpose. Joint enterprise is a legal doctrine that allows multiple defendants to be convicted of a crime if they were all involved in the same criminal activity, even if only one of them committed the actual act that led to the crime.
Before the Jogee case, it was possible for the secondary party to be found guilty of murder if he had been involved in a crime where a murder was committed, even if he had not intended for anyone to be killed. The principle of joint enterprise allowed the prosecution to argue that they had still been involved in the crime and therefore were equally responsible for the murder.
In the Jogee case, the Supreme Court ruled that the law on joint enterprise had been misinterpreted for over 30 years, and that it was not enough for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility of violence occurring. Instead, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to encourage or assist the person who committed the crime.
This decision had significant implications for many people who had been convicted under the old law, as well as for future cases. It meant that people who had previously been convicted of murder under joint enterprise could potentially appeal their convictions, and that future cases would require a higher burden of proof for the prosecution to secure a conviction.
Before the Jogee case, it was possible for the secondary party to be found guilty of murder if he had been involved in a crime where a murder was committed, even if he had not intended for anyone to be killed. The principle of joint enterprise allowed the prosecution to argue that they had still been involved in the crime and therefore were equally responsible for the murder.
In the Jogee case, the Supreme Court ruled that the law on joint enterprise had been misinterpreted for over 30 years, and that it was not enough for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility of violence occurring. Instead, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to encourage or assist the person who committed the crime.
This decision had significant implications for many people who had been convicted under the old law, as well as for future cases. It meant that people who had previously been convicted of murder under joint enterprise could potentially appeal their convictions, and that future cases would require a higher burden of proof for the prosecution to secure a conviction.
