Accessibility navigation


Joint enterprise, murder and substantial injustice: the first successful appeal post-Jogee (case comment)

Krebs, B. (2018) Joint enterprise, murder and substantial injustice: the first successful appeal post-Jogee (case comment). Journal of Criminal Law, 82 (3). pp. 209-211. ISSN 1740-5580

[img]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

100kB

To link to this item DOI: 10.1177/0022018318779644

Abstract/Summary

This paper analyses the Court of Appeal decision in R v Crilly [2018] EWCA Crim 168. This was the first out-of-time appeal after R v Jogee in which the applicant succeeded in demonstrating ‘substantial injustice’ and having his murder conviction vacated. Although the judgment demonstrates that the Court remains faithful to its approach in R v Johnson and the high threshold test of ‘substantial injustice', Crilly suggests that if it can be shown that an applicant's case was in essence about foresight, the odd reference to intention might not prove fatal to demonstrating that had the jury been given Jogee-compliant directions on accessorial liability, this would have made a difference to their verdict.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:78415
Publisher:SAGE

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation