Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 27 February 2016

R v Jogee 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 UKPC 7.

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. Twice during the night the pair visited the house of Naomi Reid who was in a relationship with Paul Fyfe (the deceased). After the second visit Reid sent Jogee a text asking him not to bring Hirsi back to her house but the men returned for a third time only minutes later. By this time the deceased 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 the deceased.

Judgment

Crown Court

In a trial at Nottingham Crown Court the judge, Dobbs J, directed the jury as follows: "the appellant (Jogee) 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". This direction accorded with the standard interpretation of the law regarding joint enterprise in the light of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen AC 168. On this basis the appellant was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal approved the reasoning of the trail 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." Jogee's sentence was, however, reduced from 20 years to 18 years.

Supreme Court

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 the Supreme Court took the opportunity to re-state the principles on joint enterprise and held that there are two questions that must be asked in order to ascertain the guilt of a defendant:

1. Did the defendant assist or encourage the commission of the crime?
2. In this assistance or encouragement, did the defendant act with the requisite mental element of that offence?

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).

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". 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.

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."

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

The Sun reported that hundreds of convicted killers may appeal following the decision in this case.

See also

• Criminal law of England
• Joint enterprise
• 2016 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

References

1. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
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. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
5. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
6. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
7. "CHAN WING-SIU -V- THE QUEEN; PC 21 JUN 1984". swarb.co.uk. 9 July 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
8. "Man challenges 'joint enterprise' murder conviction in supreme court". The Guardian. 27 October 2015. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
9. EWCA Crim 1433. Paragraph
10. "Joint enterprise law has been 'wrongly interpreted', Supreme Court rules". ITV. 18 February 2016. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
11. Fagan, Ciaran (18 February 2016). "Police killer Ameen Jogee to face retrial for murder or a lesser conviction". Leicester Mercury. Retrieved 22 February 2016.
12. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
13. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
14. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
15. Laffan, Diarmaid (18 February 2016). "Supreme Court abolishes "wrong turn" Joint Enterprise law". UK Human Rights Blog. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
16. UKSC 8. Paragraph .
17. 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.
18. Walton, Gregory; Rayner, Gordon (18 February 2016). "Victims' families 'devastated' by Supreme Court ruling on joint enterprise". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
19. Christie, Sam (18 February 2016). "500 convicted killers could be FREED after ruling that law has been 'wrongly interpreted' for 30 years". The Sun. Retrieved 23 February 2016.

External links

• Supreme Court judgment
• Video of the judgment

• Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
• 2016 in British law
• 2016 in case law
• English criminal law