Introduction
This essay examines the legal issues arising from the recent bank robbery committed by Nalishebo, Bwalya, and Monde, during which Bwalya shot and killed a customer. Despite their shared oath against killing, rooted in personal and religious beliefs, this act has introduced complex considerations for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in deciding whether to institute proceedings. The analysis will focus on the principles of joint enterprise, the offence of murder, and potential defences or mitigating factors under UK criminal law. By exploring relevant case law and statutory provisions, this essay aims to provide a sound basis for the DPP’s decision-making process, highlighting both the applicability and limitations of the legal framework in addressing this case.
Joint Enterprise and Shared Criminal Liability
A primary legal issue concerns whether Nalishebo and Monde can be held liable for Bwalya’s act of killing under the doctrine of joint enterprise. In UK law, joint enterprise holds that individuals participating in a criminal venture may be liable for the actions of their co-defendants if those actions were reasonably foreseeable. The landmark case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 redefined this doctrine, abolishing the problematic ‘parasitic accessory liability’ and requiring proof of intent to assist or encourage the principal offender (Rudin and Sugarman, 2016). For Nalishebo and Monde, liability would depend on whether they foresaw the possibility of lethal force by Bwalya and continued to participate. Given their explicit oath against killing, it could be argued that such foresight was absent. However, their active involvement in an armed robbery inherently carries a risk of violence, which a court might deem sufficient for liability.
The Offence of Murder and Bwalya’s Direct Liability
For Bwalya, the primary charge would likely be murder, defined under common law as the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought, encompassing an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (Herring, 2020). The facts indicate Bwalya shot the customer after non-compliance, suggesting a deliberate act. The prosecution must establish intent, which may be inferred from the use of a firearm—a typically lethal weapon—as seen in cases like R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664. Bwalya’s breach of the trio’s oath might be irrelevant to establishing guilt but could influence sentencing if personal beliefs are raised as mitigation. Furthermore, the customer’s refusal to comply does not constitute a lawful defence, as self-defence requires a proportionate response to an imminent threat, unlikely applicable here (Herring, 2020).
Potential Defences and Mitigating Factors
The trio’s shared principle against killing introduces questions of defences or mitigation. Bwalya might argue diminished responsibility under Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, if a recognised medical condition impaired his ability to form intent. However, no such evidence is apparent. For Nalishebo and Monde, their lack of direct involvement in the shooting and adherence to the oath might reduce their culpability, potentially limiting charges to robbery under the Theft Act 1968. Nevertheless, the inherent risks of armed crime could undermine such arguments, as courts often prioritise public safety over personal beliefs in sentencing (Sentencing Council, 2020).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the DPP faces complex legal issues in prosecuting Nalishebo, Bwalya, and Monde. Bwalya’s direct liability for murder appears strong, given the intentional use of lethal force, while joint enterprise principles may implicate Nalishebo and Monde, despite their oath against killing. The redefined scope of joint enterprise in R v Jogee offers some protection against overbroad liability, yet the inherent risks of armed robbery may still suffice for prosecution. Ultimately, these considerations highlight the tension between individual intent and collective criminality in UK law, urging a careful balance in the DPP’s approach to ensure justice is served.
References
- Herring, J. (2020) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 9th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Rudin, J. and Sugarman, D. (2016) ‘The End of Parasitic Accessory Liability: R v Jogee’ Criminal Law Review, 2016(5), pp. 345-359.
- Sentencing Council (2020) Robbery: Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Council.
