|
In criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. In this situation the participants are jointly liable for all that results from the acts and omissions occurring within the scope of their agreement. For example, the High Court of Australia in McAuliffe v The Queen 69 ALJR 621, states at 624 that "...each of the parties to an arrangement or understanding is guilty of any crime falling within the scope of the common purpose which is committed in carrying out that purpose" and concluded at page 627: Image File history File links SmallLadyJustice. ...
English law is the law of England and Wales, rather than Scotland and Northern Ireland. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
In many common law jurisdictions (e. ...
A hybrid offence or dual offence are the special offences in Canadian criminal law where the prosecution may choose whether to proceed with a summary offence or an indictment. ...
Regulatory offences are a class of crime in which the standard for proving culpability has been lowered so as not to require any fault elements. ...
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime. ...
Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ...
In law, causation is the name given to the process of testing whether defendants should be fixed with liability for the outcome to their acts and omissions that injure or cause loss to others. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. ...
In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) constitutes a crime. ...
In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed wilful blindness) is one of the three possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for guilty mind). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both an actus reus...
Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal...
In the criminal law, corporate liability is an aspect of criminal vicarious liability and determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be convicted of offences committed by the natural persons it employs. ...
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity. ...
In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the...
In the criminal law, an omission or failure to act will only constitute an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) and give rise to liability when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. ...
Concurrence or Simultaneity is a legal term, from Western jurisprudence, referring to the simultaneous occurrence of actus reus (bad action) and mens rea (bad mind), which must be present for a crime to have occurred; except in crimes of strict liability. ...
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse) is a legal doctrine holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape punishment for violating the law merely because they were unaware of the law; that is...
An inchoate offense is a crime. ...
Solicitation is a crime; it is an inchoate offense that consists of a person inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime. ...
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, so a natural person identified with the mind of a legal entity cannot conspire with the company alone. ...
An accessory is a person who assists in or conceals a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. ...
The crime of attempt occurs when a person does an act amounting to more than mere preparation for a criminal offense, with specific intent to commit a crime, if that act tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. ...
In criminal law, a common assault is a crime when the defendant either puts another in fear of injury or actually commits a battery. ...
In many common law jurisdictions, the crime of battery involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm. ...
Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) is an offence under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1847. ...
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource. ...
Corporate manslaughter is a term in English law for an act of homicide committed by a company. ...
Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. ...
Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c. ...
Everyday instance of theft: the bike which fits on this wheel has disappeared In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the wrongful taking of someone elses property without that persons freely-given consent. ...
Dishonesty is a term which in common usage may be defined as the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery. ...
TWOC is an acronym standing for Taken Without Owners Consent. ...
For the purposes of English law, deception is defined in s15(4) Theft Act 1968 and applies to the deception offences in the Theft Act 1968, and to the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68), the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a monetary demand is met. ...
A cars handling is a description of the way the car performs, particularly during cornering. ...
The Theft Act 1978 supplemented to earlier Theft Act 1968. ...
Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intention to deceive. ...
Computer Crime, E-Crime, Hi-Tech Crime or Electronic Crime is a crime in which a computer plays an essential part. ...
Bribery is a crime defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. ...
Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath in a court of law. ...
Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ...
Property law is the law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (eg. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
In the criminal law, an omission or failure to act will only constitute an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) and give rise to liability when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. ...
- ...it is sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to have realised that in the course of the joint enterprise the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
Explanation In English law, the doctrine derives from R v Swindall v Osborne (1846) 2 Car. & K. 230 where two cart drivers engaged in a race. One of them ran down and killed a pedestrian. It was not known which one had driven the fatal cart, but since both were equally encouraging the other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man, and they were held jointly liable. Thus, the parties must share a common purpose and make it clear to each other by their actions that they are acting on their common intention so that each member of the group assumes responsibility for the actions of other members in that group. When this happens, all that flows from the execution of the plan will make them all liable. This is a question of causation in that oblique intention will be imputed for intermediate consequences that are a necessary precondition to achieving the ultimate purpose, and liability will follow where there are accidental and unforeseen departures from the plan so long as there is no novus actus interveniens to break the chain. In cases where there is violence beyond the level anticipated, the prosecution must prove: English law is the law of England and Wales, rather than Scotland and Northern Ireland. ...
This article is about causality as it is used in many different fields. ...
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. ...
The principle of imputation reflects the general public policy underpinning the operation of the law which is that ignorantia juris non excusat, the Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. ...
- (a) an act done by D which in fact assisted the later commission of the offence,
- (b) that D did the act deliberately realising that it was capable of assisting the offence,
- (c) that D at the time of doing the act contemplated the commission of the offence by A i.e. he foresaw it as a �real or substantial risk� or �real possibility,� and
- (d) that D when doing the act intended to assist A in what he was doing.
If there is doubt as to whether all the participants are contributing equally, those defendants whose contribution is less may be charged as accessories rather than as joint principals. An accessory is a person who assists in or conceals a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. ...
Deliberate departure Where one of the participants deliberately departs from the common purpose by doing something that was not authorised or agreed upon, he or she alone will be liable for the resulting consequences. In the situation exemplified in Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378 a group comes together for a fight or to commit a crime and either they know or do not know that one of their team has a weapon. If they know that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct the one carrying to leave it behind, means that its use must be within the scope of their intention. But if they do not know of the weapon, this is a deliberate departure from the common purpose and this breaks the enterprise.
When the outcome is death The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder, is when two or more plan to cause death and do so. If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable regardless who actually inflicted the fatal injury. But when there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else, e.g. a planned robbery in which the participants hope to be able to get what they want without killing anyone, but one of them does in fact kill, the other participants may still be guilty of murder or manslaughter provided that they had the necessary mens rea. In R v Lovesey and Peterson (1969) 53 Cr.App. R. 461 a gang was executing a plan to overpower a jeweller and steal his more valuable stock. After the robbery, the jeweller was found dead. All were properly convicted because the death was the outcome of the agreed use of violence. That this accidentally caused the jewller's death did not prevent liability. The usual case will involve plans to commit criminal damage, burglary, rape or some other crime and there will be no compelling inference that there must also have been a plan to kill. For the participants to be convicted of murder. the question becomes one of foresight that one of them might kill. In R v Powell (Anthony) and English (1999) 1 AC 1 the Lords said that the other participants must have realised that, in the course of the joint enterprise, the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, i.e. with the intent necessary for murder. Thus the Powell and English doctrine extends joint enterprise liability from the paradigm case of a plan to murder to the case of a plan to commit another offence in the course of which the possibility of a murder is foreseen (see R v Bryce (2004) [1]). Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
Repentance Where one person has been an active member of the common purpose, he or she may escape liability by withdrawal before the other(s) go on to commit the crime. But mere repentance without any action clearly leaves the party liable. To be effective, the withdrawal must actively seek to prevent what has been done from being relied upon by the others. In R v Becerra (1975) 62 Crim. App. R. 212 it was held that any communication of withdrawal by the secondary party to the perpetrator must be such as to serve "unequivocal notice" upon the other party to the common purpose that, if he proceeds upon it, he does so without the further aid and assistance of the withdrawing party. According to Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law: - If an accomplice only advised or encouraged the principal to commit the crime, he must at least communicate his withdrawal to the other parties.
- Where an accomplice has supplied the principal with the means of committing the crime, the accomplice must arguably neutralise, or at least take all reasonable steps to neutralise, the aid he has given.
- In more serious cases, it may be that the only effective withdrawal is either physical intervention or calling in the police.
In R v Rook (1997) Cr. App. R. 327 the court held that, as in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance. Rook was convicted as one of a gang of three men who met and agreed the details of a contract killing to kill the wife of a fourth man on the next day. Rook did not turn up next day and the killing was done by his two fellows. His defence was that he never intended the victim to be killed and believed that, if he failed to appear, the others would not go through with the plan. Lloyd LJ. described the evidence against him in this way: - So the position, on his own evidence, was that he took a leading part in the planning of the murder. He foresaw that the murder would, or at least might, take place. For a time he stalled the others. But he did nothing to stop them, and apart from his absence on the Thursday, he did nothing to indicate to them that he had changed his mind.
This did not amount to an unequivocal communication of his withdrawal from the scheme contemplated at the time he gave his assistance.
References - Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN: 0199279187.
- Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN: 0406977305.
|
Feeds |
Contact