100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Examine how Ruddock and Jogee avoided legal issues. £6.36
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Boston College, Boston (BC)
  4.  
  5. 3102 (101)

Lecture notes

Examine how Ruddock and Jogee avoided legal issues.
 0 purchase

In the case of R v Jogee, the UK Supreme Court overturned a previous interpretation of joint enterprise law, which had been used to convict individuals of murder even if they didn't directly commit the killing. The ruling clarified that merely being present or associated with someone who commits a ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • June 11, 2024
  • 4
  • 2023/2024
  • Lecture notes
  • Subha basak
  • All classes

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
waltonx96mini

Content preview

6/11/24, 8:35 PM JEJoggee




Examine how Ruddock and Jogee avoided legal issues.

When the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the appeal, common law reform
began. This is about joint association laws. The Chan Wing-Siu doctrine convicted
both defendants of murder. PAL stands for parasitic accessory liability. Enclosing
user-supplied text with tags. Professor Sir John Smith coined the term and
lobbied the privy council to adopt it in the Chan Wing-Siu case [4]. Additionally,
Powell and English [5] had an impact.
Each decision has been evaluated using "PAL" before. We'll investigate what's
convinced legal scholars and commentators that PAL is a judicially used illegal
doctrine. Courts use the doctrine, which does not rely solely on logic, to determine
whether co-conspirators intended to murder. No intent proof was required for
secondary parties. The secondary party should expect the primary party to engage
in improper conduct [6]. This shows the prosecution's ability to quickly identify
accessories' crimes.
R v. Smith [8] illustrates prejudicial court regulations before the PAL. Before PAL,
the judicial system dealt with crime pragmatically. R v. Smith [9], a precedent,
shows how courts consider third-party intent when determining liability. In court,
anticipating the primary defendant's more heinous act does not prove intent to
murder or inflict severe bodily harm. Only those who intentionally cause substantial
and unlawful physical harm are murderers, according to the court [10]. Whether
the principal knew about the second act depends on the accomplice's intent. In
secondary participation cases, R v. Reid [11] supports this position. Knowing the
defendant's intent to murder was enough to convict, the ruling said. The court
found murder based on information, not intent. The manslaughter conviction
mattered.
Chan Wing-Siu [12] details the secondary participation regulatory amendment. On
May 31, 1980, the appellant and two others visited two delinquents to settle a
debt. The loan led to two fatal stabbings and serious injuries. Following one
victim's assault, the third perpetrator admitted to using a knife in self-defense,
while the other two denied any allegations. Defendants called the offense victim-
initiated. There were three murder convictions [13]. The court considered
accomplice liability (PAL) for murder if the secondary party had any reasonable
expectation that the principal would breach their agreement and commit a more
heinous act. According to Chan Wing-Siu, if two people conspire to commit a crime
(A) and one (D1) commits a different crime (B) to achieve the same goal, the other
(D2) may be held liable as an accessory to crime B if they knew or should have
known D1 would commit the act. D2's knowledge and continued participation in the




about:blank 1/4

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller waltonx96mini. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £6.36. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67619 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling

Recently viewed by you

Package deal ·

(0)

Samenvatting ethiek en beleid in de social profit

Exam (elaborations) ·

(0)

Hawaii Real Estate Review Quiz 1 100% Correct Solved

Summary ·

(0)

Uitgebreide samenvatting over Marx + extra informatie

Summary ·

(0)

Module 5.1.1: Homeostasis and neuronal communication

Exam (elaborations) ·

(0)

CLEP College Composition Test Questions And Answers

Package deal ·

(0)

ALLE VERPLICHTE ARRESTEN OVERHEID&PRIVAATRECHT!
£6.36
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added