R v Jogee
The Supreme Court corrected a wrong turn in the law of joint enterprise taken 30 years earlier, departing from Privy Council and House of Lords authority.
Facts
Ameen Jogee and Mohammed Hirsi went to the house of a former girlfriend of Hirsi and became involved in a confrontation with her partner, Paul Fyfe, a former police officer. Hirsi stabbed Mr Fyfe with a knife from the kitchen, killing him. Mr Jogee, who was outside, encouraged Hirsi. Mr Jogee was convicted of murder as a secondary party on the basis of the rule in Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168, approved by the House of Lords in R v Powell; R v English [1999] 1 AC 1, that a secondary party was guilty if he foresaw that the principal might commit murder.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court, sitting with the Privy Council in a related appeal from Jamaica, held that the courts had taken a wrong turn in Chan Wing-Siu. Foresight of what the principal might do is evidence from which intention may be inferred, but it is not enough by itself: the secondary party must intend to assist or encourage the principal to commit the crime, with knowledge of any existing facts necessary for it to be criminal. The court departed from Chan Wing-Siu and R v Powell, explaining that the error had been made on an incomplete review of the authorities and had produced serious problems. Mr Jogee's murder conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered; he was later convicted of manslaughter.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
