R v Jogee: The Supreme Court and the law of complicity

The successful appeal in R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen before the a combined Supreme Court and Privy Council raises important issues in the criminal law of complicity (sometimes unhelpfully labelled 'joint enterprise').
In this video Dr Matthew Dyson, who advised the appellant's counsel in the case considers the law of complicity, what the case changed, and its implications.
Dr Matthew Dyson is Fellow in Law and Director of Studies at Trinity College. His research includes complicity specifically, giving evidence before the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, and wider issues such as volumes like "Comparing Tort and Crime" and "Unravelling Tort and Crime" by Cambridge University Press. For more information about Dr Dyson, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/acade...
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

[@chompythechomperchomp]

Oh my sweet lord thank you. You're my savior ... I'm trying to wrap my head around participation in crime and you cleared the air of doubt around it. Please do more explanatory videos on complex areas of law :D would love to see a video on the differences between the defense of insanity and the partial defense of diminished responsibility.

[@nicnaxnax51]

Wow you did an excellent job in explaining this

[@iotaultsch]

Thank you Dr Dyson!

[@tali5197]

I like this.Thank You.

[@MarkSmith-kj3py]

very insightful

[@ishfaqafridi4288]

being lawyer and practicing criminal cases the crux of this good lecture is when the common intention is established between principal accused and the accomplice so both are responsible on equal footing be punished with same punishment.

[@shtai8070]

The Court of Final Appeal in Chan Kam Shing held in 2016 does not follow this Supreme Court decision

[@onelife7247]

Test of foresight is interesting when one or more defendants has a diagnosed/undiagnosed learning disability / neurodevelopmental disorder.
This clinical population often present with cognitive deficits in this respect. See also “theory of mind” deficit, where the defendant was unable to infer the thoughts and intentions of those involved.

[@brianellinger6622]

cant say that "i' was complicite in this with how many times that i have begged law enforcement for help,....
even sending multipule letters to the s.a.

[@summguyy]

1984, eh?

[@bhfireblade]

haha

[@BossLady263]

good explanation but damn why do you speak so fast

[@jwt242]

No audio, guys, really?

[@kwphillyzkp2]

This is why privi council has to go