R v Johnson (Lewis)
After the Supreme Court changed the law of joint enterprise in R v Jogee, defendants convicted under the old law could appeal out of time only if they could show that they would suffer substantial injustice.
Facts
In R v Jogee, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that the courts had taken a wrong turn in the law of joint enterprise, by treating foresight of what the principal might do as sufficient for the liability of a secondary party, and that the correct test was whether the secondary party intended to assist or encourage the crime. Many people who had been convicted of murder under the old law sought to appeal out of time. The Court of Appeal heard several such applications together.
Legal principle
Lord Thomas CJ said that, where a conviction was based on the law as it stood at the time of the trial, and the law has since been changed by a judicial decision, leave to appeal out of time will be granted only if the applicant can show that a substantial injustice would be done if leave were refused, which is a high threshold. The court must consider the strength of the case against the applicant on the correct test, and whether the outcome of the trial would have been different if the jury had been directed in accordance with Jogee. The fact that the law had changed was not itself sufficient. None of the applications succeeded, and very few later applications have succeeded.
Related cases on appeals and miscarriages of justice
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Chalkley [1998] QB 848
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
Studying criminal procedure? 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.
