Accessibility navigation

Accessory liability: persisting in error (case comment)

Krebs, B. (2017) Accessory liability: persisting in error (case comment). Cambridge Law Journal, 76 (1). pp. 7-11. ISSN 1469-2139

Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1017/S0008197317000150


The paper examines the recent decision in Miller v The Queen by the High Court of Australia. The Court declined to follow the Privy Council and UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in abolishing the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise, but as the paper argues the reasons given by the majority do little more than reassert well-rehearsed arguments in favour of ‘joint enterprise’ doctrine. The decision appears policy-based rather than principled. The paper suggests that the dissenting opinion makes for a much more convincing argument.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:72949
Publisher:Cambridge University Press


Downloads per month over past year

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

Page navigation