## Facts

- The defendant, Rook, agreed with others to kill his wife as part of a joint criminal enterprise.
- At the time of the planned crime, Rook did not attend the meeting where the killing was to occur.
- Rook argued his absence constituted withdrawal from the joint plan.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether his actions amounted to a sufficient withdrawal from the enterprise.

## Issues

1. What constitutes effective withdrawal from a joint criminal enterprise?
2. Does simple absence from the scene or failing to participate constitute withdrawal?
3. How must withdrawal be communicated, and to whom?
4. At what point must withdrawal occur to serve as a defence against liability?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld Rook’s conviction, ruling that mere absence was insufficient for withdrawal.
- Withdrawal requires unequivocal steps—either words or actions—demonstrating a firm decision to leave the enterprise.
- Communication of withdrawal should remove any doubt about the defendant’s intention to withdraw.
- The court held that the adequacy of withdrawal depends on factors such as the timing of communication, the method used, and whether the conduct effectively made the crime’s commission less likely.
- The judgment clarified that the closer in time to the offence, the more direct and urgent the steps to withdraw must be.

## Legal Principles

- Withdrawal from a joint enterprise operates as a full defence to liability only if it is unequivocal and occurs before the crime is committed.
- Passive non-participation or inaction does not amount to effective withdrawal; positive action is necessary.
- The adequacy of withdrawal depends on communication method, timing, and the defendant's role in the planned offence.
- Later cases have clarified that informing the police or otherwise making the crime impossible are accepted methods for effective withdrawal, though practical limits in communication may be considered.

## Conclusion

R v Rook establishes that effective withdrawal from a joint enterprise must be clearly and timely communicated; passivity or failure to participate does not suffice. The standard set requires demonstrable, unequivocal actions evidencing intent to depart from the joint plan, assessed according to the particular facts and circumstances of each case.


R v Rook [1993] 2 All ER 955