Complicity, Jogee, and the Principles of Criminal Law Sarah Tromans A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of Magister Juris (MJur) Department of Arts and Law Birmingham Law School University of Birmingham 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Complicity, Jogee and the Principles of Criminal Law Sarah Tromans, University of Birmingham MJur, 2018 This thesis explores the rules of complicity and parasitic accessory liability (PAL) in England and Wales and their relationship with the principles of criminal law. Complicity creates a general liability for assisting or encouraging a crime. PAL allowed for the conviction of an accessory to a joint criminal venture, for a possible collateral offence of the principal, as long as it was foreseen as a possible incident of the initial crime. Complicity is important because it attributes responsibility to individuals who contributed in some way to a substantive offence of another, without committing the offence itself. PAL did not work well in practice but was followed for thirty years until Jogee in 2016, which was considered to be a breakthrough in the requisite mental element of complicity and also the abolition of PAL. This thesis examines the relationship of both complicity and PAL with a set of criminal law principles. It then moves on to consider the impact of Jogee on the relationship of both doctrines with these principles. The thesis challenges the idea that the judgment was a major change in the law and concludes that many criminal law principles remain breached, post-Jogee, in some factual scenarios. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Robert Cryer and Dr Katherine Doolin for their continual support, advice, encouragement and tireless reading of my draft chapters. I have sent them many drafts while studying for this MJur at the University of Birmingham and the feedback received has always been helpful and informative. I am also very grateful for the assistance of Dr Milena Tripkovic, who stepped in as my deputy supervisor after Dr Doolin’s departure to New Zealand, and Dr Kate Gooch’s initial contribution to my studies. I am indebted to my family for their acceptance of my continual status as a student for the last few years. I am very grateful for the use of the extensive library at the University of Birmingham and the staff who have provided help when needed. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CASES ..................................................................................................... ix TABLE OF STATUTES ............................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 THE AIM AND STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS ........................................................................ 4 FACTS OF JOGEE ........................................................................................................... 8 NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................. 9 THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES OF CRIMINAL LAW UNDER SCRUTINY ............................. 10 CHAPTER 2 - COMPLICITY AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW ............ 20 THE RATIONALE OF BASIC ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY ......................................................... 22 THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY AND CAUSATION IN COMPLICITY .............................. 27 MENS REA OF COMPLICITY PRIOR TO JOGEE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW ........ 34 AN ACCOMPLICE’S MENS REA FOR HER OWN ACT OF ASSISTING/ENCOURAGING ...... 36 AN ACCOMPLICE’S MENS REA AS TO THE PRIMARY ACTOR’S CRIME ........................ 39 IS THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR LABELLING REFLECTED IN COMPLICITY? .................................. 47 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 51 CHAPTER 3 – PAL AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW .......................... 54 THE ROLE OF PAL IN CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-JOGEE .......................................................... 55 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLICITY AND PAL, PRIOR TO JOGEE ............................ 58 HOW WERE CAUSATION AND INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY REFLECTED IN PAL? ....................... 64 THE MENS REA OF PAL AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW ...................................... 67 THE MERGING OF COMPLICITY AND PAL ........................................................................ 71 THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE RULE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW ................ 74 HOW PAL APPLIED TO CASES OF SPONTANEOUS GROUP VIOLENCE BEFORE JOGEE ......... 80 WAS FAIR LABELLING REFLECTED IN PAL? ................................................................... 82 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 87 CHAPTER 4 – JOGEE’S IMPACT ON COMPLICITY AND PAL IN RELATION TO THE IDENTIFIED PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW .............................................. 89 THE RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF COMPLICITY FROM JOGEE? ...................................... 90 WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT RESTATE THE LAW OF COMPLICITY IN JOGEE? ................. 92 ENCOURAGEMENT OR ASSISTANCE AND CAUSATION IN COMPLICITY AFTER JOGEE ........... 99 HAS A NEW FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE RULE BEEN CREATED IN JOGEE? ...................... 103 IS PRIOR AGREEMENT STILL A REQUIREMENT POST-JOGEE? ......................................... 104 ASSOCIATION AND PRESENCE AT THE CRIME POST-JOGEE ............................................ 106 THE MENS REA OF COMPLICITY AFTER JOGEE .............................................................. 108 INTENTION VERSUS KNOWLEDGE ....................................................................... 109 THE ACCESSORY’S LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRINCIPAL’S CRIME ................. 111 iv DOES THE ACCOMPLICE HAVE TO INTEND THE PRINCIPAL’S CRIME? ...................... 112 WHAT THRESHOLD OF FORESIGHT IS NECESSARY FOR INTENTION IN COMPLICITY, POST-JOGEE AND HAS THE MENS REA FOR ACCOMPLICES BEEN ALIGNED WITH THAT OF PRINCIPALS? .............................................................................................. 117 THE USE OF CONDITIONAL INTENTION IN JOGEE .................................................. 123 IS THERE A LACUNA IN THE LAW, FOLLOWING JOGEE? ......................................... 128 THE USE OF WEAPONS TO ESTABLISH MENS REA ................................................ 130 MANSLAUGHTER AS AN ALTERNATIVE VERDICT, FOLLOWING JOGEE .............................. 132 LEAVE TO APPEAL AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE .................... 138 DOES PAL/JOINT ENTERPRISE EXIST POST-JOGEE? ..................................................... 142 THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF JOGEE TO CRIMINAL LAW ............................................. 146 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 147 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 153 A RECONSIDERATION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S REASONS FOR THE RESTATEMENT MADE IN JOGEE ....................................................................................................................... 163 THE FUTURE .............................................................................................................. 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 168 v TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AC Appeal Cases ALJR Australian Law Journal Reports All ER All England Law Reports Apr April BAME Black, Asian, Minority, Ethnic CA Court of Appeal Cal LR California Law Review Cam LJ Cambridge Law Journal CLJ Criminal Law Journal CLR Commonwealth Law Reports CPS Crown Prosecution Service Crim Criminal Division Crim LR Criminal Law Review Crim App R Criminal Appeal Review Crim Law and Philo Criminal Law and Philosophy CUP Cambridge University Press Edn Edition EWCA England and Wales Court of Appeal HC House of Commons HCA High Court of Australia HKCFA Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal HKCFAR Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Reports HL House of Lords vi JENGbA Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association J Crim L Journal of Criminal Law JCCL Journal of Commonwealth and Criminal Law JPN Justice of the Peace, now Criminal Law and Justice Weekly KB Kings Bench Law Com Law Commission LJ Law Journal LQR Law Quarterly Review LS Legal Studies LSG Law Society Gazette Ltd Limited MLR Modern Law Review No Number