ACCESSORIES

[2017] EWCA Crim 268 [2017] EWCA Crim 268

Convictions for robbery and murder were not rendered unsafe by the admission into evidence of a co-accused’s guilty plea. The Court of Appeal also considered the impact on the convictions of the decision in R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan) [2016] UKSC 8 in relation to the issue of joint enterprise.

[2016] NICA 40 [2016] NICA 40

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to re-open six appeals against conviction arising out of the Supreme Court’s judgment in R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan) [2016] UKSC 8 which clarified the law on accessory liability. Putting the law right did not render all convictions invalid which had been arrived at over many years by faithfully applying the law as had been laid down in previous authorities. The appropriate recourse was for the defendants to refer their cases to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

[2016] UKSC 8 [2016] UKSC 8

The doctrine of parasitic accessory liability, laid down by the Privy Council in Chan Wing Siu v R. [1985] A.C. 168, could not be supported. The Supreme Court re-stated the principles concerning the liability of accessories or secondary parties.

Under the parasitic accessory liability doctrine, a person could be convicted of murder where they had acted as an accessory in the joint enterprise of possession of a firearm that was used in the murder. Possession was not a unique offence requiring both participants to act as principals.

[2013] EWCA Crim 1512 [2013] EWCA Crim 1512

A judge had been wrong to withdraw joint enterprise accessory liability for murder from a jury as what might suffice for withdrawal in spontaneous and unplanned group violence did not necessarily suffice in planned group violence.