R v Jogee

Last updated
R v Jogee
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameR v Jogee (Appellant); Ruddock (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica)
Argued27–29 October 2015
Decided18 February 2016
Neutral citation [2016] UKSC 8
Case history
Prior history [2013] EWCA Crim 1433
Holding
The rule regarding joint enterprise has been wrongly interpreted since the case of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168. The correct position is that the defendant must intentionally act or encourage the principal to act with the requisite intent in order to be found liable for the same offence.
Case opinions
MajorityLord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson and Lord Thomas
Area of law
Joint enterprise

R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that reversed previous case law on joint enterprise. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling jointly with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was considering an appeal from Jamaica, Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKPC 7.

Contents

Facts

On 9 June 2011, Jogee and his co-defendant, Hirsi, spent the evening taking drugs and drinking alcohol causing their behaviour to become increasingly aggressive. [1] [2] Twice during the night the pair visited the house of Naomi Reid who was in a relationship with Paul Fyfe (referred to in the judgment as "the deceased"). [3] After the second visit Reid sent Jogee a text asking him not to bring Hirsi back to her house in Rowlatts Hill but the men returned for a third time only minutes later. [4] By this time Fyfe had returned to the house and an angry exchange ensued between him and the two defendants. At 2:30am on 10 June 2011, Jogee was outside shouting encouragement to Hirsi who stabbed and killed Fyfe. [4]

Judgment

Crown Court

In a trial at Nottingham Crown Court the judge, Dobbs J, directed the jury as follows: "the appellant (Jogee) [is] guilty of murder if he participated in the attack on the deceased, by encouraging Hirsi, and realised when doing so that Hirsi might use the kitchen knife to stab the deceased with intent to cause him really serious harm". [5] This direction accorded with the standard interpretation of the law regarding joint enterprise in the light of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168. [6] On this basis the appellant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve at least 20 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. [7]

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal approved the reasoning of the trial judge and the law as stated in Chan Wing-Siu. Laws LJ stated that "The mental element, the mens rea , of the secondary party's crime is an appreciation that the primary actor might inflict grievous bodily harm and a willingness to lend his support notwithstanding." [8] Jogee's minimum term was, however, reduced from 20 years to 18 years. [9]

Supreme Court

Both defendants were from the Spinney Hills area of Leicester. Spinney Hill Park, Leicester - geograph.org.uk - 94064.jpg
Both defendants were from the Spinney Hills area of Leicester.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the law had taken a wrong turning since the decision in Chan Wing-Siu. In a joint lead judgment by Lords Hughes and Toulson, they concluded that a conviction under the principle of complicity required that the secondary party intended to assist the principal to commit the crime, and if that crime required fault (for example, that the principal must intend to kill) then the secondary party intended the principal to have that fault. The secondary party does not need to intend the principal to commit the crime, the secondary party might be indifferent to whether the crime is committed. However, in practice, most defendants are prosecuted on the basis that they were "all in it together", all intending the crime to take place. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the judgment made this clear. [11] They first describe the physical requirements of assistance or encouragement, and then turn to the fault elements:

"89. In cases of alleged secondary participation there are likely to be two issues. The first is whether the defendant was in fact a participant, that is, whether he assisted or encouraged the commission of the crime.

90. The second issue is likely to be whether the accessory intended to encourage or assist D1 to commit the crime, acting with whatever mental element the offence requires of D1... If the crime requires a particular intent, D2 must intend (it may be conditionally) to assist D1 to act with such intent."

Paragraph 90 went on to give some clarity on what must be intended: [12]

"as a matter of law, it is enough that D2 intended to assist D1 to act with the requisite intent. That may well be the situation if the assistance or encouragement is rendered some time before the crime is committed and at a time when it is not clear what D1 may or may not decide to do. Another example might be where D2 supplies a weapon to D1, who has no lawful purpose in having it, intending to help D1 by giving him the means to commit a crime (or one of a range of crimes), but having no further interest in what he does, or indeed whether he uses it at all."

One very significant problem that remains centres on "conditional intention". As the court explained in paragraph 92: [13]

"92. In cases of secondary liability arising out of a prior joint criminal venture, it will also often be necessary to draw the jury’s attention to the fact that the intention to assist, and indeed the intention that the crime should be committed, may be conditional. The bank robbers who attack the bank when one or more of them is armed no doubt hope that it will not be necessary to use the guns, but it may be a perfectly proper inference that all were intending that if they met resistance the weapons should be used with the intent to do grievous bodily harm at least."

Finally, other existing rules about fault remain, such as that S must know enough about P's conduct to be able to know it was criminal (paragraphs 9 and 16) and that if P commits one of the offences that S intended to assist, it does not matter which one (paragraph 14). [14]

The standard questions for liability as a participant to be established through the rules on complicity, therefore are:

  1. Did the defendant assist or encourage the commission of the crime? [15]
  2. In this assistance or encouragement, did the defendant encourage or assist the principal to commit the crime, acting with whatever mental element the offence requires of the principal? [16]

To elaborate on this point their Lordships gave an example: a defendant encourages the principal to take another person's bicycle and then return it after use but the principal in fact keeps the bicycle. In this scenario the principal will be guilty of theft but the defendant will only be guilty of the lesser offence of unauthorised taking because he has not encouraged the principal to act with the intent to permanently deprive (the mens rea of theft). [16]

Significance

The judgment has been described as "a call for prosecutors, judges and juries to return to the close consideration of the evidence before them without the crutch of a blunt principle". [17] In a similar vein the judges in the case noted that there should not be an over-reliance on the weapon that is being carried by the principal. The weapon involved is a relevant piece of evidence but should be viewed as part of the wider context of the case. [18]

Lord Neuberger explained that the judgement was unlikely to lead to large numbers of appeals against old convictions:

Where a conviction has been arrived at by faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time, it can be set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time. That court has power to grant such leave, and may do so if substantial injustice be demonstrated, but it will not do so simply because the law applied has now been declared to have been mistaken. [19]

Reaction

Charlotte Henry's brother was convicted under the Chan Wing-Siu interpretation of joint enterprise. She reacted to the judgment by saying "When the judgment was delivered I heard everyone catch their breath. My mother fell into uncontrollable sobs of relief. Finally we are hopeful that my brother will come home and we will be a family again." [20]

The wife of the deceased in the case said that she was "shocked and devastated" by the decision. [21]

Subsequent developments

On 8 April 2016, the Supreme Court ordered that Jogee was to be retried on the charge of murder, "with the included alternative of manslaughter". [22] [23] Jogee was cleared of murder at his retrial at the Nottingham Crown Court, but was convicted of manslaughter. [24] As a result, on 12 September 2016, his previous term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years was replaced by a fixed-term sentence of 12 years, to include time already served as a result of his original conviction for murder. [25] Jogee was released from prison in June 2017. [26] He was later convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs in November 2019 and sentenced to two years and four months in prison. [27]

While hailed as an important criminal law development at the time it was handed down for its effects on cases after 2016 [28] [29] the judgment has subsequently come to be seen by many legal commentators and joint enterprise campaigners as having had little impact upon the cases that had already been decided and consequently as offering little help to potential victims of miscarriages of justice from the pre-2016 period. The first round of post-Jogee appeals, the consolidated cases of Johnson & Others, R. v (Rev 1)[2016] EWCA Crim 1613, [30] resulted in all the convictions being upheld and it was not until 2018, in the case of R v Crilly [2018] EWCA Crim 168 [31] that a conviction was overturned through application of the Jogee principles. Shortly after Crilly's successful appeal, Paul Taylor KC, the head of the Doughty Street Chambers Appeal Unit, which had represented Crilly, commented that the combined effect of the Supreme Court's 'substantial injustice' test at paragraph 100 of their judgment, as well as the additional tests laid down by the Court of Appeal in Johnson & Others, would combine to severely limit the number of successful appeals. [32] A high-profile 2016 case in Manchester which resulted in 11 murder convictions on the basis of joint enterprise has been cited as further evidence of the limited impact of the decision. [33] [34]

By 2021, only 2 of 103 appeals made with reference to Jogee had succeeded, prompting Felicity Gerry KC, who was lead counsel for Jogee at the Supreme Court, to criticise the Criminal Cases Review Commission for "ha[ving] taken the disappointing approach of accepting the injustices perpetuated by the court in choosing factual options to uphold wrongly achieved convictions". [35] A report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, published in April 2022, suggested that the number of people charged on a joint enterprise basis had in fact risen in the five years after the judgment, and that the number of black defendants convicted for murder as secondary participants had doubled. [36] Similarly, a New York Times investigation published in November 2022 found that in the five years after the Jogee judgment was handed down, Ministry of Justice data showed that the number of homicide cases involving four or more defendants increased by 42 percent and convictions by nearly 50 percent. Black defendants were three times as likely as white ones to be prosecuted using joint enterprise, during this period. [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible, a court typically must demonstrate that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that they knew or should have known that another would be harmed by their actions and wanted this harm to occur. For example, if a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incitement</span> Encouragement of another person to commit a crime

In criminal law, incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all types of incitement may be illegal. Where illegal, it is known as an inchoate offense, where harm is intended but may or may not have actually occurred.

The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, joint criminal enterprise or parasitic accessory liability is a common law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all reasonable results from that enterprise. The common purpose doctrine was established in English law, and later adopted in other common-law jurisdictions including Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, the Solomon Islands, Texas, the International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

Complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages (abets) other perpetrators of that crime, and who shared with them an intent to act to complete the crime. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if they purpose the completion of a crime, and toward that end, if that person solicits or encourages the other person, or aids or attempts to aid in planning or committing the crime, or has legal duty to prevent that crime but fails to make an effort to prevent it properly.

<i>R v Ghosh</i> English criminal law case

R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case setting out a test for dishonest conduct which was relevant as to many offences worded as doing an act dishonestly, such as deception, as theft, as mainstream types of fraud, and as benefits fraud. The test has been revised to an objective test, with rare exceptions, by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

State v. Mitchell, 170 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 175 (1902), is a precedent-setting decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri which is part of the body of case law involving the prosecution of failed attempts to commit a crime. In United States law, cases involving failed criminal attempts can bring up interesting legal issues of whether the crime was unsuccessful due to factual impossibility or to legal impossibility.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets another person in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if he or she is not the principal offender. The words aiding, abetting and accessory are closely used but have differences. While aiding means providing support or assistance to someone, abetting means encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Accessory is someone who in fact assists "commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else". However, some jurisdictions have merged being an accessory before the fact with aiding and abetting.

<i>R v Horncastle</i>

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

<i>R v Gnango</i> British legal case

Regina v Armel Gnango[2011] UKSC 59 is the leading English criminal law case on the interaction of joint enterprise, transferred malice, and exemption from criminal liability where a party to what would normally be a crime is the victim of it. The Supreme Court held, restoring Gnango's conviction for the murder of Magda Pniewska, that he was guilty of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had not fired the shot which killed Pniewska during the shoot out which led to her death, and that the fatal shot had been fired by his opponent in an attempt to kill him. The judgment of the Supreme Court has been criticised over the alleged extent to which it was designed to mollify public opinion, and in the context of debates over the nature of the doctrine of joint enterprise.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i> UK legal case

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

<i>Re N</i> (Children)

In the matter of N (Children) [2016] UKSC 15 was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the relevant jurisdiction for deciding the future welfare of two young girls.

<i>The Mayors Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd</i>

The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd[2016] UKSC 18 is a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that provided an interpretation of section 2 to the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edward Brown (barrister)</span>

Edward Francis Trevenen Brown KC is an English barrister who specialises in international criminal law and human rights. He is one of the most senior prosecutors at the Old Bailey where he also served as a Recorder, as well as sitting as a part-time circuit judge at Southwark Crown Court. Brown has written extensively on gang violence and joint enterprise murder in The Times.

References

  1. ↑ [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [101].
  2. ↑ Buchan, Rebecca (19 February 2016). "The man who killed my brother could walk free from prison". The Press and Journal. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  3. ↑ "Man 'Licked Bloodied Knife Blade And Laughed' After Stabbing Ex-Policeman, Court Hears". The Huffington Post . 16 March 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  4. 1 2 [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [102].
  5. ↑ [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [104].
  6. ↑ "CHAN WING-SIU -V- THE QUEEN; PC 21 JUN 1984". swarb.co.uk. 9 July 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  7. ↑ "Man challenges 'joint enterprise' murder conviction in supreme court". The Guardian . 27 October 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  8. ↑ R v AMEEN HASSAN JOGEE, 2013 EWCA Crim 1433 (England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)11 July 2013).
  9. ↑ "Joint enterprise law has been 'wrongly interpreted', Supreme Court rules". ITV. 18 February 2016. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  10. ↑ Fagan, Ciaran (18 February 2016). "Police killer Ameen Jogee to face retrial for murder or a lesser conviction". Leicester Mercury . Retrieved 22 February 2016.
  11. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf, [89]-[90]
  12. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf, [90]
  13. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf, [92]
  14. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf, [14]
  15. ↑ [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [89].
  16. 1 2 [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [90].
  17. ↑ Laffan, Diarmaid (18 February 2016). "Supreme Court abolishes "wrong turn" Joint Enterprise law". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  18. ↑ [2016] UKSC 8. Paragraph [98].
  19. ↑ 2016 UKSC 8, paragraph 100.
  20. ↑ Henry, Charlotte (18 February 2016). "My brother got 19 years' jail on a joint enterprise conviction. Now we want him home". The Guardian . Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  21. ↑ Walton, Gregory; Rayner, Gordon (18 February 2016). "Victims' families 'devastated' by Supreme Court ruling on joint enterprise". The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved 23 February 2016.
  22. ↑ "Retrial after joint enterprise appeal". BBC News. 8 April 2016.
  23. ↑ "UPDATE: R v Jogee - joint enterprise decision from the Supreme Court | Wilberforce Chambers". Archived from the original on 19 September 2016. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  24. ↑ "Joint enterprise killer re-convicted". BBC News. 5 September 2016.
  25. ↑ Bowcott, Owen (12 September 2016). "Ameen Jogee jailed for manslaughter in joint enterprise test case". The Guardian.
  26. ↑ Hopkins, Steven (22 July 2017). "How Joint Enterprise Landmark Ruling Went From 'Opening The Flood Gates', To Changing Nothing". Huffington Post.
  27. ↑ Thompson, Alan (29 November 2019). "Drugs gang jailed for more than 50 years". leicestermercury.
  28. ↑ "Supreme Court abolishes "wrong turn" Joint Enterprise law". UK Human Rights blog. 18 February 2016.
  29. ↑ Kavanagh, Dennis (21 March 2016). "The world post-Jogee". Counsel magazine.
  30. ↑ "Johnson & Ors, R. V (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Crim 1613 (31 October 2016)".
  31. ↑ http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/78415/3/Krebs%252C%20B%20-%20Case%20Comment%20Crilly%20%2528May%202018%2529.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  32. ↑ Taylor QC, Paul (31 August 2018). "The Jogee effect". Counsel magazine.
  33. ↑ Stopes, Harry (9 March 2018). "How do 11 people go to jail for one murder?". The Guardian.
  34. ↑ Longley, Oumou (29 July 2020). "Black People in the UK Are Going to Jail for Crimes They Didn't Commit. Here's Why". Vice.
  35. ↑ Robinson, Jon; Robinson, Noah (5 January 2021). "Miscarriage of justice watchdog calls for a review of juries". The Justice Gap .
  36. ↑ Siddique, Haroon (27 April 2022). "Joint enterprise ruling has not led to fewer homicide charges, report finds". The Guardian.
  37. ↑ Bradley, Jane (12 November 2022). "U.K. Doubles Down on a Tactic Disproportionately Targeting Black People". The New York Times.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.