The Law of 'Joint Enterprise': Graham Virgo
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2014
- Professor Graham Virgo is Professor of English Private Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, and also Deputy Chair of the Faculty Board.
In this video, Professor Virgo considers the current position of the law relating to defendants who are prosecuted in cases of 'common purpose'. Several different circumstances are often combined to form the confused category of 'Joint Enterprise'. Professor Virgo outlines these different circumstances, criticises the current state of the law in this field, and seeks to provide some possible reforms to clarify the situation.
In April 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published the results of the first statistical analysis of 'Joint Enterprise' homicide cases. Both Professor Virgo and Dr Matthew Dyson (also of the University of Cambridge) were consulted by the BIJ as part of the investigation (see www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2...)
A BBC documentary broadcast on 7 July 2014 examined this area of law and specifically the case of Alex Henry, who was found guilty of stabbing Taqui Khezihi, despite him claiming to have never touched the knife. (See www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049bb31)
The BBC also broadcast a drama based on 'joint enterprise' law on 6 July 2014 entitled 'Common'. (See www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p021gb62)
Notes and structure:
1. There is no law of 'joint enterprise': no statute, no doctrine, just a tag which hides much confusion as to the state of the law.
2. Three senses of 'joint enterprise':
(a) Two principal offenders with a common purpose
(b) General accessorial liability
(i) Procures, assists or encourages the principal to commit a crime.
(ii) Intention to do the act of assisting or encouraging.
(iii) Knowing, believing or foreseeing that the principal will/might commit the crime.
(iv) Not liable where an unequivocal withdrawal.
(c) Departure from a joint enterprise ('parasitical accessorial liability')
(i) A common purpose to commit one crime (A). This purpose may be express or tacit.
(ii) The principal departs from the common purpose to commit crime B.
(iii) The accessory foresees that the principal might commit crime B as a possibility.
(iv) Not liable where crime B is fundamentally different from that contemplated.
3. The prevalence of 'joint enterprise'. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (April 2014) identified 1,853 people convicted of homicide between 2005-2013 where there were four or more participants. These are assumed to involve joint enterprise cases.
4. What has gone wrong with 'the law on joint enterprise'?
(a) The language of 'joint enterprise'. Accessorial liability is preferable.
(b) Prosecution policy. CPS Guidance on Joint Enterprise Charging Decisions (2012).
(c) The state of the law: foresight suffices, but foresight of what?
(d) Judicial directions of the jury and the dangers of inference.
(e) Complex trials involving a significant number of defendants.
(f) Sentencing, especially for murder.
5. Reform
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 | คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 2 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TgEFw285vXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thankfully, the issues outlined in this video was addressed in R v Jogee;Ruddock.
Thank you very much this is very useful...we are currently dealing with the topic at school at moment and this has helped me a lot
Very well presented.
I think that the last point about foreseeing rather than encouraging was reformed by R v Jogee. Now a defendant must intentionally act or encourage the principal to act with the requisite intent in order to be found liable for the same offence.
I think the main purpose or motive behind the accessory to treat as a principle offender is to reduce conspiracy to reduce assisting criminal through any mean either by helping aiding but the thing we should also kept in view is that we convict someone who didn't did anything in terms of committing a crime in my view accessory should be convicted but not same as of principle offender it would be probably more justifiable as compare to current law all of the objective would be met reduction of conspiracy to joint enterprise as well as some sort of justice to assesory
I know someone, who has had a history of shop theft, and been to prison 3 times, I went to take another person shopping, who asked me, and this person who had done past shop theft, came with us in the car. I never knew anything about it until she was caught this time while I was with all of them, the shop lifter was pushing the trolley when the alarm sounded, I had said before we went shopping, no Nicking, so because I said that, and she did, but I genuinely didnt know that she was going to steel this time, am I still joint enterprise?
It is stated is video you must foresaw if you didn't foresaw the situation you are not liable there is also a test from which it can be deducted that you are not assisting the crime some sort of 1. discomfortment
2. Any reasonable step to stop the crime
3.alerting police and many others
The crown can argue that you reasonably did foresee the possibility and that is why you warned her "no nicking".
If the reasons you posted in this section were the reasons you gave to a Court, the Jury would begin to doubt your defence. You open your remark by saying you knew a person had a long history in the specific offence. A bit later, you state you say you did not know this person possibly could or would commit such offence when you permitted to have this person come along in a car driven by you to a shopping centre. You are whether you thought about it ir not, putting doubts in the juries mind for them to believe your explanation.
What is the established Legal Definition? Unelected judges make law, barristers then use that case law upon which a Judges makes their decision so in English law Judges are deciding upon law created by themselves who are appointed by the Monarch? What mischief is this upon the citizens?
Update: Jogee has removed Joint Enterprise (in theory) and the required mens rea is that of standard complicity (intention for the crime to be committed with the required mens rea) and thus foresight is only important as evidence of that intention.
this cures the tension mentioned at 18:00
My partner has been in jail for five months now, due to this joint enterprise. And denied billed twice first time it was because he was on license for two years and also he only had a week left so they must've Recall him. And the Second time the judge said that he feel he will not turn up today hearing without any evidence to support that this man has never missed an appointment he's always on time yes he's done criminal things in the past but he's not a criminal right now. basically they are saying he was The getaway driver free people dan robbery. And the reason why I say 3 people it's because the fourth person is my partner. The other three was on camera basically a sorting the manager of the store. He was making a rollup basically have A smoke and they came running down and then he recognised one of them. And they must have got into my partners car and my partner being unaware of what is happening they asked for a lift and offered him £10 to drop them somewhere. It was on his way home so he said yes he drove about five minutes there was a police car behind him he said he thought the car was trying to get past so he slowed down to giveaway next minute is getting trapped in by police cars he's been arrested. Not to mention we have two kids one of them was just Born she wasn't even a month yet. Oh yeah the other 3 have all pleaded guilty . My partner has not pleaded guilty. And my partner says to me sometimes should I just plead guilty Because I will get a less sentence if I do compare to if they find me guilty. And also he says he feel pressure from the jury to plead guilty to but I told him know you ain't Dan anything. I'm just so glad to see that there is people out there calling for reform because is definitely needed.
The simple evidence can be raised of being unaware of criminal on the base of car speed by simply saying that if I would have been helping the criminals or would have known that they are criminal or if I would have been the member of that gang group I would have drove the car as fast as I could have but simply because I was unaware of that all circumstances I didn't drove fast or tried to escape
coporate killings, apply the law of joint enterprise job done, justice achieved.
Law is based upon morality.
what is morality of the law makers and law applicators?
Morality, a sense of what is right and wrong.
It is morality that fails the justice system?
jogga singh teidy
you mention judges, these are not regulated and need to be regulated as to sense and sensability as to validity of the rhyme and reason of their thinking.
Law is based on simple principle of right and wrong.
what that right and wrong is determined by the judges and judged to be correct, until is changed again, goal post moved so to say.
There is no true justice as such, because sense and sensability of the judiaciary applies, which may well be nonsense gibberish, which they well know of or not.
People therefore cannot get justice, because unlike other professions, criminal law judiaciary are not regulated, they are appointed and just are as they are and deemed to ok in everything.
It's all to do with who's in charge and exercise of power, and law students bust their brains out trying to see rhyme and reason.
Law is mere research as to who said what in what case and what holds now, nothing to do with absolute facts and justice, etc...even evidence at times is not admissable.
Law is wrongly judged to be subject of intellect.
so intellectual people can lece intellect out of practic of law, that is why predent white wigs are used, to denote pretension of wisdom?
Unfortunately Joint enterprise doesn't always catch the right people.
Look into the crimes of one Nana Oppong. If there's anyone who should have been correctly jailed by this method it is him.
I am a victim of a JCE in which several parties including Commonwealth and State Govt officers of Australia may be shown to have been allegedly involved by their actions. I have been studying all aspects surrounding the applicability of the doctrine (JCE) and its common purpose extension (EJCE) to my case. So, after my deep study of this area of the law, I not quite sure why you say 'it is just a tag...' and 'we don't really know what we're talking about..'
Of course its a tag. But, It is also a simple matter of knowing that JCE is not in itself an offence, but for it to be considered in a criminal case it must have a foundational offence; or in the case of EJCE, an incidental or additional offence/s. There are judges with trial directions to guide them.
Further, you give as an example, parties who are simply present being able to be charged and convicted on that basis. This too, is not correct. After all, during trial, the facts ascertained will show whether the party or person was involved in some way or not. It is my personal opinion that persons if shown to be involved with a perpetrator of a crime should have the book thrown at them, if there is a real desire to clean up society. Mollycuddling a potential offender or counting oneself as a do-gooder as so many do; is why we still have crime occurring with offenders showing a finger to the law.
I say based on experience, that any offender or group of offenders carrying out serious indictable offences should feel the weight if the law with such harshness, they would never think to engage in criminal behaviour of any kind for the rest of their miserable lives.
Maybe this change comes from the framers of the Law. Maybe the framers of this Law are God fearing. Judgement comes in the form of association does it not. Birds of a feather flock together.
Is the Holy Bible a book of Law? If so, does it say all will be judged? If yes, could this be a mere tightening of the yoke, ever tightening till the wheat and the tears are righteously divided?
This change is Good in the eyes of the Law Giver!
2 Corinthians 6:14-17:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what
partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what
fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ
have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a
temple of the living God, even as God said, “I will” dwell in them and
“walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
(Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 37:27)
Because of this, “come out from among them” “and be separated,” says the
Lord, “and do not touch the unclean thing,” and I will receive you.
(Isa. 52:11)
Ephesians 5:6-7,11 :
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for through these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience. Then do not become partakers with them;
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them.