Common Purpose Doctrine In Uk Law
⚖️ Common Purpose Doctrine in UK Law
Detailed Explanation with Case Law
What Is the Common Purpose Doctrine?
When two or more people agree to commit a crime, each can be held responsible for acts committed by any member in furtherance of the plan.
Liability extends even if a participant did not personally commit the crime but foresaw it as a possible consequence of their joint enterprise.
Key Elements:
Agreement or Common Purpose:
Participants share a plan to commit an unlawful act.
Act in Furtherance:
A crime is committed by one of the group to further the plan.
Foreseeability:
The defendant must have foreseen the possibility that the crime could occur.
⚖️ Landmark UK Cases on Common Purpose
1. R v. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Facts:
Jogee was convicted of murder because a friend in his group killed someone, even though Jogee did not actually kill or intend to kill.
Held:
Supreme Court overturned previous interpretations of joint enterprise law.
Liability requires intent to assist or encourage the crime, not just foresight of the crime.
Principle:
Foresight is evidence of intent, not intent itself.
Changed the law to require intentional assistance or encouragement, limiting liability.
2. R v. Powell and English (1999)
Facts:
Defendants convicted under joint enterprise for murder committed by a co-defendant.
Held:
Court held that foresight of possibility was sufficient to convict.
Principle:
Earlier case reflected the old joint enterprise doctrine, which Jogee later overruled.
3. R v. Chan Wing-Siu (1985)
Facts:
Defendant was convicted because he foresaw the murder his companion committed.
Held:
Held that foresight of the crime’s commission made one liable, even without intent.
Principle:
Reinforced the pre-Jogee position: foresight = liability.
4. R v. Smith and Another (2011)
Facts:
Joint enterprise conviction for murder based on foreseeability of violence.
Held:
Courts applied the foresight rule to uphold conviction.
Principle:
Before Jogee, courts applied the foresight test strictly.
5. R v. Bainbridge (1960)
Facts:
Defendant involved in robbery was held liable for a more serious crime committed by an accomplice.
Held:
Established that a person could be liable for a crime if it was a probable consequence of the joint enterprise.
Principle:
Expanded joint enterprise liability to crimes that are a probable consequence of the plan.
6. R v. Rahman (2008)
Facts:
Defendants convicted of murder under joint enterprise.
Held:
Court considered whether the defendants foresaw the murder; conviction upheld.
Principle:
Reaffirmed the pre-Jogee approach focusing on foresight.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Issue | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jogee | 2016 | Joint enterprise liability | Overturned foresight test | Intent to assist required |
| Powell & English | 1999 | Foresight sufficiency | Convicted | Foresight = liability |
| Chan Wing-Siu | 1985 | Foresight for murder | Convicted | Foresight = liability |
| Smith | 2011 | Joint enterprise murder | Convicted | Foresight test applied |
| Bainbridge | 1960 | Probable consequence | Convicted | Liability for probable crimes |
| Rahman | 2008 | Foresight in murder | Convicted | Reaffirmed foresight test |
Key Takeaways
The law changed in 2016 with Jogee — now the prosecution must prove intent to assist or encourage, not just foresight.
Foresight is still relevant as evidence of intent but is not enough alone.
Before Jogee, the law was broader, holding people liable if they foresaw the possibility of the crime.
The doctrine aims to balance holding conspirators accountable with avoiding unfair convictions.
🧠 Quick Check Questions
Before Jogee, how did courts use the concept of foresight in joint enterprise?
After Jogee, what must the prosecution prove to convict someone under common purpose?
Why was the Jogee decision significant for criminal liability?
RELATED Blog
0 comments