Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:15:32.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACCESSORY LIABILITY: PERSISTING IN ERROR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Beatrice Krebs
Get access

Extract

IN Miller v The Queen [2016] HCA 30, the High Court of Australia (HCA) declined to follow the Privy Council and UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in abolishing the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise, as PAL is known in South Australia. Under the Australian doctrine, liability for murder is imposed where an individual “is a party to an agreement to commit a crime and foresees that death or really serious bodily injury might be occasioned by a co-venturer acting with murderous intention and he or she, with that awareness, continues to participate in the agreed criminal enterprise” (at [1]). This reflects the very position that was abandoned in Jogee [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] 2 W.L.R. 681 Ruddock v The Queen UKPC 7 as a “wrong turn” of the English common law.

Type
Case and Comment
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 7 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)