- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Powell and English (1997) HL: Joint Enterprise Liability in Murder
I. Case Summaries & Key Facts:
I. Case Summaries & Key Facts:
- Powell, A, B, C:
- A, B, and C went to purchase drugs from V.
- V was shot dead.
- The Crown could not prove who fired the gun.
- All three knew Powell was armed.
- Held: A and B were found guilty of murder.
- English, D, E:
- D and E were assaulting a police officer with a wooden post.
- E (English) stabbed and killed the officer.
- Held: D was found not guilty of murder.
- Joint Enterprise Liability:
- When two parties engage in a joint enterprise to commit a crime, and one party (the secondary party) foresees that, in the course of the enterprise, the other party (the primary party) may commit another crime with the requisite mens rea, the secondary party is liable for that other crime if committed by the primary party during the enterprise.
- Mens Rea for Murder in Joint Enterprise:
- For a secondary party to be convicted of murder, it is sufficient that they realized the primary party might kill with intent to do so OR with intent to cause grievous bodily harm during the joint enterprise.
- Unforeseen Acts:
- If the jury believes the primary party's act (e.g., E's use of a knife) was not foreseen by the secondary party (e.g., D), then the secondary party is not guilty of murder.
- Crucially, an unforeseen act takes the killing outside the scope of the joint venture. In such cases, the jury should also be directed that the secondary party should not be found guilty of manslaughter either.
- Lord Steyn suggested that Parliament should reform the law of murder.
- He proposed that a killing should be classified as murder if there is:
- An intention to kill, OR
- An intention to cause really serious bodily harm,
- Combined with an awareness of the risk of death.
- Distinguish between the two cases: Powell illustrates a scenario where secondary parties were found guilty (foreseeability of being armed and potential for fatal force was likely inferred). English highlights the exception where an unforeseen act by the primary party negates liability for the secondary party.
- Focus on the "foreseeability" element: This is central to joint enterprise liability for murder. It's not about certainty, but about the realization that the act "might" occur.
- Mens Rea for Murder: Remember the two limbs: intent to kill OR intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The secondary party must have foreseen the possibility of one of these occurring.
- Scope of Joint Enterprise: An unforeseen and fundamentally different act by the primary party takes the killing outside the scope of the original joint venture, absolving the secondary party of liability for murder and manslaughter.
- Lord Steyn's point is a reform proposal, not current law: While important for critical analysis, understand that his suggestion about "awareness of the risk of death" was a call for legislative change, not a statement of the existing legal standard at the time of the judgment. The existing law focuses on foresight of intent to kill or cause GBH.
- Application: When analyzing scenarios, ask:
- Was there a joint enterprise?
- What was the original crime intended?
- Did the secondary party foresee that the primary party might commit murder (with intent to kill or cause GBH) during that enterprise?
- Was the fatal act within the scope of what was foreseen, or was it a fundamentally unforeseen act?
0 Comments