Warwick01926 491181
Arranging and Paying for Care
Deprivation of Assets
Paying for Care: Financial Assessments, Deferred Payments and Top-Ups
Section 117 aftercare and long-term care funding
Common questions about gifting
Deferred Payments - A Guide
Nurse Judy - NHS continuing healthcare
Winter Pressures - The Law
Conveyancing and property
Conveyancing - Top 10 FAQ's
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
Property and Financial Affairs
Health and welfare disputes
Professional Deputy Service
Arrest and prosecution
Asset Division
Child Arrangements Proceedings
Children disputes
Lease Extension - Individual right to a new lease
Right to Manage
Enfranchisement of Houses
Services for Care Providers
Acting as an attorney or deputy
Enduring Power of Attorney
Making a will checklist
Statutory Gifting and Statutory Wills
What happens if you don't have a will?
Advance Decisions
Top Tips to take when looking for a new commercial property
Defamation and brand protection
Employment documentation and policies
E-commerce and IT agreements
Health and Safety/General Regulatory Solicitors
Regulatory compliance and inspections
Free Legal Advice Clinic
Client Feedback Survey
Joint Enterprise - a brief analysis
Criminal law generally only holds offenders liable for their own actions but, under the doctrine of joint enterprise, a person may be found guilty for another person's crime.
Simple association or accidental presence during a crime is insufficient for a charge under joint enterprise. A suspect must knowingly assist or encourage the crime and agree to act together with the primary offender for a common purpose. For example, the driver of a getaway vehicle can be charged with robbery under joint enterprise even if an accomplice actually perpetrated the crime.
If one group member deviates from a plan, then joint enterprise may not be applicable because the assistance must be with knowledge. For instance, if a group agrees to vandalize property but one group member assaults and batters a passer-by without knowledge or assent of other members, the doctrine of joint enterprise is unlikely to be applicable.
The question remains whether a particular outcome was reasonably foreseeable or within the scope of a crime. If so, then a prosecutor may nevertheless properly proceed with a joint enterprise charge.
The doctrine of joint enterprise is controversial because a person can be held criminally liable for another's actions. Younger people have been disproportionately affected by the application of joint enterprise in recent years due to an increase in violent crimes committed by groups of youths.
Furthermore, whether suspects were engaged in a joint enterprise is more complex in specific intent crimes such as murder. In such cases, a jury might only hold the group liable up to the point of the crime requiring specific intent.
Prosecutors consider a number of factors when deciding whether to pursue a joint enterprise charge including maturity or age, proportionality of the actual offense to possible sentence, harm to the victim, and premeditation. The prosecution must also be in the public interest.
Given the seriousness of being charged with a crime for which a suspect did not physically perpetrate, a prosecutor may elect to charge the suspect with a lesser crime rather than pursue a charge under joint enterprise if the conditions are not sufficiently persuasive. Additionally, no action for joint enterprise murder is sustainable unless the prosecution also secures a guilty verdict for the primary offender.
As mentioned above, the doctrine of joint enterprise has been controversial for years. All that is, however, about to change. The Supreme Court ruled in February 2016 that the law relating to joint enterprise has been misinterpreted by the Courts for over 30 years. This could open the floodgates in appeals to the Court of Appeal upon joint enterprise.
The decision in the case of R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen will provide any person convicted of an offence under the law relating to joint enterprise a potential ground of appeal.
If you have a query regarding criminal law, please call our experienced legal team, Jamie Strong, Sean Logan or Sarah Marshall on 01926 491181 for free initial advice.
Are you an Attorney? Common questions about gifting….
Education Law Solicitors
Legal Aid | Community Care
Legal Aid | Criminal Defence
Mental Capacity and Best Interest
Health and Safety/General Regulatory
Sports Law Solicitors in Warwick
Saturday openings
QualitySolicitors is a group of modern, progressive law firms providing legal advice for individuals and businesses with over 100 high street locations. QualitySolicitors firms are independent law firms that share the aim of providing clients the highest standards of legal expertise combined with exceptional customer service.
Moore & Tibbits Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, no. 563197. www.sra.org.uk. VAT number: GB 273 0129 83. Registered office: 34 High Street, Warwick, CV34 4BE. Company registration No. 07731558. Registered in England and Wales.
If you are a customer of Moore & Tibbits Limited and we have contracted with you online, you may be entitled to use the EU Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Platform to assist in resolving any dispute with us. This service can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/odr. Our email address is: email@moore-tibbits.co.uk.
Name?* Phone number?* When is the best time to contact you? Day Time Please select Mon-Fri Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday	 Please select Message