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.
