The United States Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios Inc. 464 US 417 (1984).
The supply of equipment for copying video cassettes did not give rise to joint liability in tort for copyright infringement.
The difference lies between mere knowledge at the point of sale and action combined with common intention: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd. 545 US 913 (2005): see p. 931.
It was not known which one had driven the fatal cart, but since they were encouraging each other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man and both were held jointly liable.
This is a question of causation, in that oblique intention will be imputed for intermediate consequences that are a necessary precondition to achieving the ultimate purpose, and liability will follow where there are accidental and unforeseen departures from the plan, so long as there is no novus actus interveniens to break the chain.
Until 2016, in cases where there is violence beyond the level anticipated, the prosecution had to prove: In R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 the UK Supreme Court decided that (c) was wrong, and that the prosecution actually had to prove that D had intended to assist A to commit the crime, and this normally meant (but did not have to mean) that D intended A to commit the crime.
If the person knows that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct the one carrying to leave it behind means that its use must be within the scope of their intention.
Bentley was convicted as a party to the murder, by English law principle of common criminal purpose "joint enterprise".
Baker argues that the case was wrongly decided because it did not rest on oblique intention, invoked joint-perpetration where there was none, invoked the "provocative act murder doctrine where it did not apply, and overly restricted the incidental party/victim rule without seeing that it did not apply because the actual victim as opposed to the putative victim (Gnango) did not consent to being harmed.
One person who has been an active member of a group with a common purpose may escape liability by withdrawing before the others go on to commit the crime.
R. 327, the court held that, as in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance.
Rook was convicted as one of a gang of three men who met and agreed the details of a contract killing of the wife of a fourth man on the next day.
But he did nothing to stop them, and, apart from his absence on the Thursday, he did nothing to indicate to them that he had changed his mind.This did not amount to an unequivocal communication of his withdrawal from the scheme contemplated at the time he gave his assistance.
In Hong Kong, however, the Court of Final Appeal, in Chan Kam-shing, refused to follow Jogee, as it thought "abolition of the joint criminal enterprise doctrine would leave a serious gap in the law of criminal complicity", and "the concept of conditional intent introduced in the Jogee decision caused conceptual and practical difficulties".
In a landmark decision, Secretary for Justice v Tong Wai Hung, the Court of Final Appeal clarifies the approach for determining principal liability for unlawful assembly and riot, held that the Chan Wing-siu principle is not applicable to the unlawful assembly and riot.
The use of this doctrine has caused concern among academics and practitioners in the legal community and has been the subject of an investigation by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee in the UK.
In 2010, a campaign group was formed in the UK called JENGbA (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association), which seeks reform of the law and supports those convicted by this means.
The court heard how Alex Henry was shopping in Ealing Broadway on a Tuesday afternoon in August 2013 with his two co-defendants.
He exited the shopping centre with Ferguson to see Grant-Murray being confronted by a group of four older men who were unknown to all defendants.
CCTV showed that Grant-Murray was holding a wine bottle by the neck and Bourhane Khezihi had removed his belt to use as a knuckle duster.
[10] A young man, Jonathan Fitchett, had been killed at a retail park after an altercation with Childs, who was joined by his friend Price.