Introduction
The doctrine of joint enterprise in English criminal law has long been a contentious mechanism for attributing liability to individuals involved in collective criminal conduct. This principle allows for the conviction of secondary parties who assist, encourage, or foresee the commission of a crime by another, even if they do not directly commit the act themselves. While intended to address group criminality, joint enterprise has faced significant criticism for its perceived overbreadth, potential for injustice, and disproportionate application, particularly in cases involving young people and marginalised groups. This essay explores the historical development of the doctrine, critiques its application, and evaluates the need for reform following key judicial developments, notably the Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee (2016). Through an analysis of legal principles, case law, and academic commentary, the essay argues that while recent reforms have addressed some concerns, further legislative and judicial clarity is necessary to ensure fairness and proportionality in the application of joint enterprise.
Historical Context and Evolution of Joint Enterprise
Joint enterprise, rooted in the concept of accessorial liability, emerged as a common law principle to tackle crimes committed by multiple individuals. Historically, it allowed courts to hold secondary parties accountable under the same offence as the principal offender if they participated with a shared intention or foresight of the crime. As noted by Ormerod and Laird (2018), the doctrine was initially straightforward, focusing on active participation or encouragement. However, over time, its scope expanded, particularly through cases like Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen (1985), which introduced the notion that mere foresight of a possible crime by the principal offender could suffice for liability. This marked a significant broadening of the doctrine, often leading to convictions based on loose associations rather than clear intent.
The pre-Jogee era saw joint enterprise applied with alarming frequency, especially in gang-related violence cases. Critics, including Simester et al. (2019), argue that this approach risked criminalising individuals for mere presence or association, rather than direct culpability. For instance, in murder cases, a secondary party could be convicted of murder if they foresaw the possibility of grievous bodily harm, even without intent to kill. This low threshold for liability arguably undermined the principle of individual responsibility central to criminal law.
Criticism and Calls for Reform
The expansive application of joint enterprise has long been a source of concern, particularly regarding its impact on fairness and justice. One major critique is the doctrine’s over-inclusivity, which often ensnares individuals with minimal involvement in the crime. Academic research, such as that by Crewe et al. (2015), highlights how young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, are disproportionately affected, often due to peer pressure or fleeting associations in gang contexts. Such cases raise ethical questions about whether the law adequately distinguishes between active participants and those peripherally involved.
Moreover, the doctrine has been criticised for its lack of clarity and consistency. Before 2016, the reliance on foresight as a basis for liability led to unpredictable outcomes, as juries struggled to assess subjective states of mind. The Justice Committee’s 2014 report on joint enterprise explicitly called for reform, noting that the law was “difficult to understand and inconsistently applied” (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2014). Indeed, high-profile miscarriages of justice, such as those campaigned against by organisations like JENGbA (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association), underscored the urgent need for change. These cases often involved convictions of secondary parties based on tenuous evidence of intent or foresight, exposing a fundamental flaw in the doctrine’s design.
The Impact of R v Jogee (2016)
A pivotal moment in the reform of joint enterprise came with the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The court corrected a decades-long misinterpretation by overturning the Chan Wing-Siu precedent, ruling that foresight alone was insufficient for liability. Instead, the prosecution must prove that the secondary party intended to assist or encourage the principal offender, with a conditional intent to support the crime if certain circumstances arose. This decision was widely hailed as a step towards fairness, as it reinstated the importance of mens rea (guilty mind) in establishing culpability.
However, the impact of Jogee has been mixed. While it narrowed the scope of liability in theory, practical challenges remain. For instance, proving intent in complex group scenarios can be difficult, particularly when evidence is circumstantial. Furthermore, as Baker (2017) notes, juries may still conflate foresight with intent, undermining the court’s intention to limit overreach. Additionally, the ruling did little to address retrospective cases, leaving many individuals convicted under the pre-Jogee law with limited avenues for appeal unless exceptional circumstances could be demonstrated.
Ongoing Challenges and the Need for Further Reform
Despite the progress made by Jogee, joint enterprise continues to pose challenges. One pressing issue is the lack of statutory reform to codify the principles clarified by the Supreme Court. Without legislative backing, there remains a risk of judicial inconsistency in interpreting intent and participation. Ormerod and Laird (2018) argue that a clear statutory framework could provide greater guidance to prosecutors and juries, reducing the likelihood of wrongful convictions.
Another concern is the doctrine’s application in specific contexts, such as gang-related crime. While Jogee raised the threshold for liability, prosecutors may still frame peripheral involvement as active encouragement, particularly in emotionally charged cases. This is compounded by societal and media pressures to secure convictions in cases of violent crime, sometimes at the expense of individual fairness. Therefore, further reform—potentially through targeted guidelines on prosecutorial discretion—could help balance public safety with the rights of the accused.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the doctrine of joint enterprise in English criminal law has undergone significant scrutiny and reform, particularly following the landmark decision in R v Jogee (2016). By refocusing liability on intent rather than mere foresight, the Supreme Court addressed some of the doctrine’s most glaring injustices. However, challenges persist, including practical difficulties in proving intent, the risk of judicial inconsistency, and the ongoing impact on vulnerable groups. This essay has argued that while Jogee represents a positive step, further legislative codification and prosecutorial guidance are necessary to ensure the doctrine operates fairly and proportionately. Ultimately, the reform of joint enterprise remains an evolving process, requiring continuous evaluation to safeguard the foundational principles of criminal responsibility and justice.
References
- Baker, D. J. (2017) Reinterpreting Criminal Complicity and Inchoate Offences. Routledge.
- Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N., and Virgo, G. (2015) ‘Joint Enterprise: The Implications of an Unfair and Unclear Law’, Criminal Law Review, 4, pp. 252-269.
- House of Commons Justice Committee (2014) Joint Enterprise: Follow-up. House of Commons.
- Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2018) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. 15th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Simester, A. P., Spencer, J. R., Sullivan, G. R., and Virgo, G. J. (2019) Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine. 7th edn. Hart Publishing.
[Word count: 1023, including references]
