R v Johnson (Lewis), [2016] EWCA Crim 1613

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Jimmy, Angela, and Tyler are outside a nightclub. They plan to confront a rival group to scare them away from the premises. Each person is aware that Angela usually carries a knife. During the confrontation, Angela unexpectedly stabs a rival group member. Tyler claims that he did not intend for Angela to use the knife, while Jimmy admits to expecting her to brandish it all along.


Which of the following statements best reflects the revised test for secondary liability under current UK law?

Introduction

Joint enterprise liability, a specific area of criminal law, addresses the responsibility of individuals for offenses committed by others in a group. The case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 altered how joint enterprise is interpreted, replacing the earlier “foresight of possibility” rule for secondary liability. R v Johnson (Lewis) [2016] EWCA Crim 1613, decided shortly after Jogee, provides essential guidance for using this revised approach to establish involvement. This decision clarifies that it is required to show the secondary party intended to aid or urge the primary offender to perform the specific crime, rather than depending solely on foresight. The case emphasizes the requirement to demonstrate a common plan, supported by evidence of words, conduct, or both, to confirm secondary liability.

The Pre-Jogee Era and its Problems

Before Jogee, joint enterprise law was frequently seen as overly broad. The earlier “foresight” test permitted convicting someone as a secondary party if they merely recognized the chance that the primary offender might commit another crime during the group act, even without prior agreement. This resulted in convictions where involvement was limited, prompting concerns about fairness and justice.

The Jogee Change: Emphasis on Intent

R v Jogee redefined the legal method for joint enterprise. The Supreme Court ruled that awareness of a potential further crime is insufficient for a secondary liability conviction. Instead, it must be shown that the secondary party intended to assist or urge the primary offender to commit the specific crime. This demands proof of a shared plan between the parties, supported by their words, conduct, or both.

Johnson (Lewis): Clarifying Jogee’s Use

R v Johnson (Lewis) examined the principles from Jogee. The case involved a fatal stabbing, and the Court of Appeal evaluated how the revised joint enterprise rules should be used. The court specified that juries must determine whether the secondary party aimed to aid or urge the primary offender to commit the specific crime, as outlined in Jogee. This resolved lingering uncertainty about how Jogee applies in real cases.

Examining the Decision in Johnson (Lewis)

The Court of Appeal in Johnson (Lewis) thoroughly reviewed the evidence against the appellant, analyzing his actions and statements during the events leading to the stabbing. The court noted the necessity to account for the broader context, including the group’s behavior and the relationships between those involved. This case illustrated the significance of a thorough and precise examination of evidence in joint enterprise cases under Jogee.

Effect on Criminal Justice

Johnson (Lewis), alongside Jogee, represents a significant change in joint enterprise law. These cases have impacted criminal justice, leading to reassessments of past convictions based on the outdated “foresight” test. The emphasis on intent has lowered the risk of unjust convictions and prioritized individual responsibility. The Johnson (Lewis) ruling offered clear instructions for applying Jogee, defining what is necessary to prove secondary liability and the importance of rigorous evidence review.

Conclusion

The combined influence of R v Jogee and R v Johnson (Lewis) has transformed how joint enterprise liability is handled in English criminal law. By replacing the debated “foresight of possibility” test with a requirement to prove intent to aid or urge, courts have established a fairer and more transparent system for determining liability in cases involving multiple participants. Johnson (Lewis), by applying Jogee’s principles, affirmed the move toward requiring proof of a shared plan. This adjustment more effectively prevents unfair convictions based on mere presence or awareness and requires strict evidence analysis focused on each person’s actual role. The case upholds the principle that criminal liability depends on intentional participation in an offense. The evaluation in Johnson (Lewis) remains relevant for legal practitioners and scholars, offering a concrete example of Jogee in action and clarifying changes in joint enterprise law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal