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

[thumbnail of Krebs%2C B - Case Comment Crilly %28May 2018%29.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

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

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

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 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.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/78415
Identification Number/DOI 10.1177/0022018318779644
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Publisher SAGE
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

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

Search Google Scholar