判决理由
The doctrine of parasitic accessory liability (joint enterprise) was wrongly extended by R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] and R v Powell; English [1999]. Mere foresight that the principal might commit a crime is not sufficient for accessory liability; the prosecution must prove that the accessory intended to assist or encourage the principal's crime.
事实
Jogee and a co-defendant went to a house where an altercation took place. The co-defendant stabbed and killed the victim. Jogee was convicted of murder on the basis that he had foreseen the possibility that his co-defendant might use a knife.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court held that the law on joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn in 1984. The correct principle is that the accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal offence. Foresight of what the principal might do is evidence of intent but is not in itself sufficient.
关键引述
"The error was to equate foresight with intent to assist, as a matter of law; the correct approach is to treat it as evidence of intent."
— Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson
后续处理
The leading authority on joint enterprise liability. Has led to numerous appeals by those convicted under the previous law.