R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.


Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Feb 18, 2016

[2016] UKSC 8

UKSC 2015/0015
R v Jogee (Appellant)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (England and Wales)

JCPC 2015/0020
Ruddock (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica)
On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Jamaica)

In the case of Jogee, following an altercation involving Jogee and Hirsi, which resulted in the death of a third man (Mr Fyfe), the former were both found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Jogee appealed, amongst other grounds, on the basis that, in these circumstances, foresight of a mere possibility that Hirsi would use the kitchen knife with the intention of causing at least serious bodily harm to Mr Fyfe was not enough to found a conviction of murder as against him. The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground of the appeal. The issue in this case was therefore the correct test for establishing joint enterprise.

This case was heard with Ruddock (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica), a JCPC case which considers whether the appellant’s conviction for joint enterprise murder is unsafe, specifically whether inadmissible evidence was put before the jury and if there were defects in the judge’s directions on the law.

The unanimous conclusion of the court is that these appeals should be allowed. The correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence (albeit sometimes strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability.

The judgment and press summary are attached, with the latter also copied below. If you have any queries, please do let me know.

Comments are disabled for this video.
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...