Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen (Jamaica), United Kingdom Supreme Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Jogee and Ruddock v. The Queen (Jamaica)

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two appeals heard together: (1) an appeal in the Supreme Court and (2) an appeal in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (from the Court of Appeal of a non-UK jurisdiction). Both appeals concerned convictions for murder following jury directions applying the doctrine described as “parasitic accessory liability,” derived from Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168.

Appeal 1 (Supreme Court): Appellant 1 was convicted of murder at a Crown Court. The fatal stab wound was inflicted by a co-defendant. The incident occurred shortly after 2:30am at a residence in “The City.” On the prosecution case (based on a witness’s evidence), Appellant 1 and the co-defendant had spent the evening drinking and taking drugs, became increasingly aggressive, went to the residence, and later returned. The co-defendant took a kitchen knife and stabbed the deceased. Appellant 1 was alleged to have been outside shouting encouragement and brandishing a bottle, and at one point leaned into the doorway with the bottle raised, saying he wanted to strike the deceased. A “no case to answer” submission was rejected. The trial judge directed the jury (in accordance with Chan Wing-Siu) that Appellant 1 was guilty of murder if he encouraged the principal and realised the principal might use the knife with intent to cause really serious harm. The intermediate appellate court dismissed Appellant 1’s appeal.

Appeal 2 (Privy Council): Appellant 2 was convicted of murder at a Circuit Court. A co-defendant pleaded guilty to murder at the start of trial. Appellant 2’s appeal to the local Court of Appeal was dismissed. The prosecution case was that the murder occurred during a robbery of a taxi driver’s vehicle. The victim’s body was found bound (hands and feet tied) with the throat cut. Appellant 2 was later found in the vehicle with others and was taken to a police station. The prosecution relied on evidence from an investigating officer that Appellant 2 stated (under caution) the co-defendant cut the throat with a knife and that Appellant 2 tied the victim’s hands and feet; a recorded statement was not adduced in evidence. There was also evidence that the investigating officer told the jury (after a judicial warning against hearsay) that he told Appellant 2 a woman had “told [him] all what they have done” to her and the victim at the beach; the woman was not called. Appellant 2 made an unsworn statement denying involvement and alleging police mistreatment. The trial judge directed the jury in terms that included liability where the defendant knew there was a “real possibility” the other might have a particular intention and nevertheless took part.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the doctrine of “parasitic accessory liability” (as derived from Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168 and developed in later authorities) wrongly equated a secondary party’s foresight of a possible further offence with the intent required for secondary liability for that offence.
If that doctrine was wrong, whether (and why) it was proper for the court, rather than the legislature, to correct the common law.
How the corrected principles of secondary liability should be stated, including the roles of intent, conditional intent, and the evidential significance of foresight.
The effect of correcting the law on: (a) past convictions obtained under the prior approach, and (b) the outcomes of the two appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

The doctrine of parasitic accessory liability was said to rest on a flawed reading of earlier authorities and questionable policy reasoning.
In Appeal 1, Appellant 1 argued he could not properly have been convicted of either murder or manslaughter.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Respondents disputed that the doctrine was flawed.
The Respondents argued that even if the court now considered a wrong turn had been taken, change should be left to legislatures given the doctrine had been in place for decades across multiple jurisdictions.
In Appeal 1, counsel for the prosecution accepted that the murder conviction could not stand if the court concluded the Chan Wing-Siu principle was wrong.
In Appeal 2, counsel for the prosecution accepted that if the Board concluded the Chan Wing-Siu principle was wrong, the appeal had to be allowed on that ground.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168	Stated that a secondary party could be liable for a further offence (crime B) committed by the principal in the course of a joint venture (crime A) if the secondary party foresaw the possibility of crime B.	Held to have introduced a new, erroneous principle by equating foresight with the mental element for secondary liability for crime B; the court corrected that approach.
R v Powell and R v English [1999] 1 AC 1	Affirmed that realisation that the principal might kill with intent sufficient for murder could found murder liability for the secondary party; developed the “fundamentally different” concept (in English).	Treated as part of the line of authority founded on the mistaken Chan Wing-Siu approach; the court explained why reliance on “fundamental departure” largely fell away under the corrected test.
National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11	Intention to assist/encourage requires knowledge of facts necessary to give the principal’s conduct its criminal character.	Used to state orthodox mens rea for secondary liability, including where the offence requires no mens rea beyond intentional assistance of the prohibited act with relevant knowledge.
Attorney General v Able [1984] QB 795	Example of applying the requirement of knowledge of essential facts for accessory liability.	Cited as an illustration of the orthodox approach to mens rea in secondary liability.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112	Example of applying the requirement of knowledge of essential facts for accessory liability.	Cited as an illustration of orthodox principles on intention/knowledge for assistance or encouragement.
Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350	Accessory liability where the secondary party intentionally assists a violent attack within a range of contemplated forms, without knowing the precise form.	Used to explain that it can be enough that the offence committed falls within a range of offences intentionally assisted/encouraged.
Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544	Lack of knowledge of the facts conferring criminality defeats accessory mens rea.	Used to demonstrate the necessity of knowledge of essential criminal facts for aiding and abetting.
R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534	Presence/association may be evidence of encouragement/assistance but is not necessarily sufficient.	Used to stress that mere presence or association does not automatically establish secondary liability.
R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808	Prosecution need not prove encouragement/assistance had a positive causal effect on the principal’s conduct.	Used to explain that assistance/encouragement need not be shown to have altered the outcome, subject to remoteness questions.
Hyde (1672)	Illustration that earlier encouragement may be “spent,” so later offending may not be attributable to the accessory.	Used to show factual limits where separation/withdrawal or distancing may break attribution of encouragement/assistance.
R v Collison (1831) 4 Car & P 565	Co-adventurer liable for greater violence only if common purpose included resisting with extreme violence if needed.	Used as part of the pre-Chan Wing-Siu line requiring shared purpose/intent rather than “probable consequence.”
R v Macklin (1838) 2 Lewin 225	Authority consistent with the need to identify common design for the greater act.	Cited as part of the historical line supporting intent/common purpose analysis.
R v Luck (1862) 3 F & F 483	Authority consistent with the need to identify common design for the greater act.	Cited as part of the historical line supporting intent/common purpose analysis.
R v Turner (1864) 4 F & F 339	On murder, there must be evidence of common design regarding the homicidal act itself.	Cited as reinforcing the requirement of shared intent regarding homicide, not merely a common felony.
R v Skeet (1866) 4 F & F 931	Discussion of constructive homicide limits and evidential significance of weapons in joint ventures.	Used to illustrate historical complexities and the evidential, not determinative, role of weapon possession.
R v Spraggett [1960] Crim LR 840	Quashed conviction where judge treated incidental violence as presumed from acting in concert to burgle; required proof of preconceived intention to use violence.	Used to reinforce that violence liability depends on intention, not presumptions from participation in another offence.
R v Smith (Wesley) [1963] 1 WLR 1200	Approved direction distinguishing murder (intent to kill/GBH) from manslaughter (intent to hit/hurt); participants may have different mens rea and hence different homicide liability.	Treated as inconsistent with Chan Wing-Siu for murder liability: foresight is not the same as intent; used also in explaining manslaughter principles.
R v Betty (1964) 48 Cr App R 6	Noted approval of the Wesley Smith summing-up.	Used to confirm the orthodox approach requiring murder mens rea for murder liability.
R v Anderson and R v Morris [1966] 2 QB 110	Co-adventurer not liable where principal “goes beyond” what was tacitly agreed; recognition of “overwhelming supervening event.”	Explained as not supporting Chan Wing-Siu; used for the “departure”/spent-assistance concept and limits to attribution.
R v Reid (1976) 62 Cr App R 109	Manslaughter liability where enterprise envisaged some degree of violence; murder requires murderous mens rea; escalation risk recognised; distinguished “overwhelming supervening event.”	Used to show pre-Chan Wing-Siu law required murder mens rea for murder, and provided manslaughter as an available homicide category.
Johns v The Queen [1980] HCA 3; (1980) 143 CLR 108	Orthodox approach: liability where jury can infer assent to enterprise that includes (conditionally) the violent act (e.g., discharge of a firearm should the occasion arise).	Used to show the correct ratio was assent/conditional intent, not mere “probability,” and did not justify Chan Wing-Siu’s foresight test.
Miller v The Queen (1980) 55 ALJR 23	Upheld direction understood as requiring a plan that included possible murder; not a crime A/crime B escalation case.	Used to show it did not support a distinct parasitic liability doctrine.
Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378	Accomplice-warning context: absent evidence that others intended/concerted/contemplated knife attack, others should not be treated as accomplices in knife use.	Held to be in a different context and not supporting Chan Wing-Siu’s principle; “contemplation” there was evidential, not a legal test for murder liability.
R v Slack [1989] QB 775	Early Court of Appeal attempt (post-Chan Wing-Siu) emphasising lending oneself to enterprise involving serious harm/death, or tacit understanding harm would be inflicted if necessary.	Discussed as part of later development/uncertainty about Chan Wing-Siu’s true meaning.
R v Wakely [1990] Crim LR 119	Statement that mere foresight of real possibility of violence was not “academically” sufficient.	Discussed as later corrected/criticised in subsequent authority said to follow Chan Wing-Siu.
R v Hyde [1991] 1 QB 134	Accepted that foresight of possibility of intentional killing/GBH could suffice under the then-understood doctrine; endorsed the “foresight suffices” reading.	Treated as part of the flawed line derived from Chan Wing-Siu.
Hui Chi-Ming v The Queen [1992] 1 AC 34	Privy Council affirmation of Hyde, endorsing that continuing participation with realisation the principal may kill/inflict serious injury sufficed for murder liability.	Treated as part of the doctrine now corrected.
R v Moloney [1985] AC 905	Mens rea principles for murder as to the principal offender.	Noted as having been distinguished in Powell and English (as applying to principals), highlighting the accessory/principal mens rea anomaly.
R v Hancock [1986] AC 455	Mens rea principles for murder as to the principal offender.	Noted as having been distinguished in Powell and English, again illustrating the anomaly.
R v Rahman [2008] UKHL 45; [2009] 1 AC 129	Later application of the doctrine; cited for the point that the rule makes guilty those who foresee crime B but never intended it (para 63 cited).	Used to support criticism that foresight should be evidence, not a conclusive legal yardstick.
R v Mendez [2011] QB 876	Comment that ordinary principles of secondary liability should apply; part of later “fundamental departure” jurisprudence.	Preferred as supporting the view that no separate “parasitic” doctrine was needed.
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108	Australian adoption of Chan Wing-Siu.	Noted in comparative discussion; the court stated it differed from the Australian approach.
Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1	Australian continuation of the extended common purpose approach.	Noted in comparative discussion.
Clayton v The Queen (2006) 231 ALR 500	Australian articulation of “extended common purpose liability” as distinct from aiding/abetting; noted dissent criticising mens rea disparity.	Discussed to reject the need for a separate form of liability distinct from ordinary secondary liability principles.
R v A [2011] QB 841	“Joint enterprise” is not a term of art and is used in varying situations covering principals and accessories.	Used to caution against public misunderstanding and to emphasise that guilt by mere association/presence is not part of the common law.
R v Church [1965] 1 QB 59	Objective test for unlawful act manslaughter: unlawful act carrying risk of some harm, resulting in death.	Used in restating manslaughter principles applicable to participants, including secondary participants.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury [1977] AC 500	Approval of Church objective test.	Used to reinforce the objective test for unlawful act manslaughter.
R v F (J) & E (N) [2015] EWCA Crim 351; [2015] 2 Cr App R 5	Recent reaffirmation of the Church/Newbury test.	Used to confirm continuing validity of the objective unlawful act manslaughter approach.
Ramsden [1972] Crim LR 547	Change/clarification in law does not generally justify reopening old convictions out of time; concerns about alarming consequences.	Used to explain limits on collateral impact of correcting the law on past convictions.
Gosney (1971) 55 Cr App R 502	Held fault was a necessary ingredient of an offence (referenced in context of past-conviction reopening).	Used only as context for Ramsden in discussing retrospective challenges.
Mitchell (1977) 65 Cr App R 185	Restated that correcting misconceptions about law does not afford grounds to extend time to appeal.	Used as an authoritative statement of the approach to late appeals after legal correction.
Hawkins [1997] 1 Cr App R 234	More recent statement of the same rule on late appeals.	Used to show consistent application of limits on reopening past convictions.
Cottrell and Fletcher [2007] EWCA Crim 2016; [2007] 1 WLR 3262	Same principles govern decisions on late appeals and referrals by the review commission; referenced with particular reliance on a paragraph noted in the judgment.	Used to confirm the framework governing reopening of convictions following a change/correction in law.
R v R [2006] EWCA Crim 1974; [2007] 1 Cr App R 150	Case reviewing authorities relevant to late appeals after legal developments.	Used as part of the summary of the established approach to past convictions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by restating orthodox principles of secondary liability: a secondary party is liable where they encourage or assist the principal, with the requisite mens rea (intention to assist/encourage, with knowledge of facts necessary to make the conduct criminal; and, where the offence requires intent, intention to assist/encourage the principal to act with that intent). The court emphasised that presence and association may be evidence of assistance or encouragement but are not automatically sufficient.

The court traced historical development of liability in joint ventures, describing an earlier “probable consequence” approach (attributed to historical commentary) and explaining that 19th-century authorities required proof that the greater violence fell within the parties’ common purpose if the occasion arose. It analysed multiple authorities to show that, prior to Chan Wing-Siu, liability for murder required the accessory to have the mens rea for murder; lesser culpability could result in manslaughter, subject to an “overwhelming supervening event” qualification breaking attribution.

The court held that Chan Wing-Siu laid down a new principle by treating foresight of the possibility of the further offence (crime B) as sufficient for accessorial liability for that offence, even absent intention. It concluded this was based on an incomplete and, in respects, erroneous reading of earlier authorities and on questionable, generalised policy arguments. In particular, the court criticised the elision of “contemplation” (foresight) with “authorisation,” and rejected the idea that authorisation of crime B can automatically be inferred from continuing participation in crime A with foresight of crime B. Foresight may be powerful evidence of intent to assist, but it is not synonymous with intent and is not conclusive as a matter of law.

On whether correction should be left to the legislature, the court reasoned that secondary liability is a common law doctrine (although expressed in statutory form) and that if the courts have unduly widened it, it is proper for courts to correct the error. The court noted statutory treatment of inchoate encouragement/assistance offences, highlighting a legislative distinction between intention and mere foreseeability, and considered that correcting Chan Wing-Siu restored consistency with that distinction.

The court restated the correct approach: the prosecution must prove (1) participation by encouragement or assistance, and (2) intention to encourage or assist the crime charged, including (where relevant) conditional intent. In joint venture cases, the jury may infer intention from the scope of the agreed plan, and foresight may support that inference, but the issue remains a question of fact. The court stated that, under this approach, focus on “fundamental departure” and weapon-type distinctions should give way to the core question of what the secondary party intended to assist.

Regarding past convictions, the court held that correcting the law did not automatically invalidate convictions obtained under the previous approach. It described established principles governing late appeals: convictions can be reopened only via exceptional leave out of time, requiring substantial injustice; a later correction of legal misconception is not, by itself, enough.

Application to Appeal 1: The trial direction applied the erroneous Chan Wing-Siu approach; the prosecution accepted the conviction could not stand if the doctrine was wrong. The court rejected the appellant’s submission that neither murder nor manslaughter could properly arise: on the jury’s verdict and the factual summary, there was at least a case fit for a jury on murder mens rea, and at minimum the appellant was party to a violent venture carrying an objective risk of some harm resulting in death (manslaughter at least). The court indicated it would invite submissions on whether to order a retrial for murder or substitute manslaughter.

Application to Appeal 2: The court identified three summing-up problems: (1) a direction based on the erroneous Chan Wing-Siu approach; (2) failure to instruct that participation in robbery did not automatically entail participation in murder and that murder required separate consideration (particularly given the appellant’s alleged statements could be understood as denying responsibility for the killing); and (3) an unsatisfactory and potentially prejudicial handling of hearsay-type material about what an uncalled woman allegedly said. Because the prosecution accepted the appeal must be allowed if Chan Wing-Siu was wrong, the court did not consider further the other defects’ consequences and invited submissions on the proper disposal.

Holding and Implications

HELD: The court rejected and corrected the “parasitic accessory liability” principle derived from Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168, holding that foresight that the principal might commit a further offence is evidence from which intent to assist may be inferred, but is not itself the requisite mens rea as a matter of law.

Implications: The corrected statement of the common law narrows murder liability for secondary parties to cases where intention to assist (including conditional intention) is proved, and treats foresight as evidential rather than determinative. The judgment also states that past convictions obtained under the prior approach are not automatically invalid and may be reopened only under established exceptional procedures requiring substantial injustice.

Disposition of the individual appeals (as described in the opinion): In Appeal 1, the court indicated the murder conviction could not stand under the corrected law and invited written submissions on whether to order a retrial or substitute manslaughter. In Appeal 2, the Board indicated the appeal must be allowed on the erroneous-direction ground and invited written submissions on the advice to be tendered regarding disposal.