Joint enterprise Definition

Case studies

"The way ��Ӱ�� dealt with us was receptive and not pushy. They took the time to get to know us and what we needed as a business."

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on Joint enterprise

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

What does Joint enterprise mean?

A joint enterprise arises where two or more persons embark on the commission of an offence.

Parties are joint principals where each does an act which is a cause of the actus reus; here each is liable for his own act, rather than for participating in the act of another, to the extent of his own mens rea. However, where two or more parties have a common purpose to commit an offence, but the act of one of them alone is the immediate cause of its commission, the doctrine of joint enterprise is engaged. This extends the liability of the other (ie non-principal) parties by making them guilty of the crime committed by the principal if they merely foresaw that the principal might do with the requisite mens rea an act of the kind which he did and which resulted in the crime; ie the test becomes one of contemplation.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Joint enterprise and secondary liability

This Practice Note is concerned with secondary liability, sometimes called accessory liability: the liability that attaches to parties to a joint enterprise. In criminal law, where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, as either a principal or secondary party, each will be liable for acts committed in pursuance of that joint enterprise with the necessary intent, unless the principal goes beyond the scope of what was agreed.In the 2016 cases of R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen, the Supreme Court clarified and restored the test for the mental element of intent which must be established when a defendant is accused of being a secondary party to a crime, see News Analysis: Supreme Court rules on ‘joint enterprise’. Historically, a secondary party could be held responsible for a crime committed by a primary party if the secondary party foresaw the possibility of the primary party committing the crime. This was known as parasitic accessory liability (PAL).Following R v Jogee, PAL no longer applies as a basis...

Confiscation step 2: Has the defendant benefited from relevant criminal conduct?

The steps to determining any confiscation order are set out at section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). Once the conditions at POCA 2002, s 6(1) and (2) have been satisfied, the court must determine whether the offender has a criminal lifestyle. A criminal lifestyle is where the court assumes that the defendant’s offending is not limited to that which is before it as a result of their conviction. The court is, in effect, assuming that the defendant is guilty of other types of criminality leading up to the offence(s) with which they have been convicted, which hasn't been detected or punished. The criminal lifestyle provisions under POCA 2002 take the form of a statutory test to determine whether or not the defendant is to be treated as having a criminal lifestyle. For information on what constitutes a criminal lifestyle under POCA 2002, see Practice Note: Confiscation step 1: Does the defendant have a criminal lifestyle? and Criminal lifestyle—flowchart.Confiscation step 2—determining benefitOnce the court has determined...

Discover our 39 Practice Notes on Joint enterprise

What does ‘group’ mean in the context of Article 69 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 and how would this definition apply where a potential grouping of entities includes a limited liability company and a limited partnership?

What does ‘group’ mean in the context of Article 69 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 and how would this definition apply where a potential grouping of entities includes a limited liability company and a limited partnership? As noted in Practice Note: Exclusions and exemptions relating to the general prohibition—an introduction, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO 2001), SI 2001/544, Art 53 excludes the giving of advice by a person if the person is a member of a group and gives the advice in question to another member of the same group. Therefore, the general principle is that as long as advice that would otherwise be regulated advice take place wholly within a group of companies or a joint enterprise, then there is no need for authorisation. While ‘group’ is not defined in RAO 2001, SI 2001/544, it is defined in section 421 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000)...

Assuming the 'group exemption' applies under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544, Art 69(9), in respect of a UK Co providing investment advice to a Limited Partnership, will the exemption be affected or diminished by the fact that the Limited Partnership is governed by a General Corporate Partner?

Assuming the 'group exemption' applies under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544, Art 69(9), in respect of a UK Co providing investment advice to a Limited Partnership, will the exemption be affected or diminished by the fact that the Limited partnership is governed by a General Corporate Partner? Practice Note: Exclusions and exemptions relating to the general prohibition—an introduction states that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (RAO), SI 2001/544, Art 53 excludes the giving of advice by a person if the person is a member of a group and gives the advice in question to another member of the same group. Therefore, the general principle is that as long as advice that would otherwise be regulated advice takes place wholly within a group of companies or a joint enterprise, then there is no need for authorisation. Whilst ‘group’ is not defined in the RAO, it is defined in section 421 of the Financial Services...

See the 4 Q&As about Joint enterprise

Corporate Crime weekly highlights—24 October 2024

This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of proposed plans for an overhaul of the UK’s product-safety framework, of an insurer launching the UK's first cybercrime recovery service, and of plans by campaigners to submit a Bill before Parliament which will assist in preventing retaliation against whistleblowers who reveal fraud, corruption and misconduct. Also included is news of new magistrates’ court rules being introduced to support proceedings under POCA 2002 and ATCSA 2001 concerning cryptoassets, of the MoJ launching an independent sentencing review as well as increasing sentencing powers for magistrates in an effort to curb the UK’s prison crisis, and of DEFRA announcing the largest review into the water sector since its privatisation. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.

Corporate Crime weekly highlights—26 September 2024

This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of the key findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report, of concerns that the UK reimbursement plan for fraudulent APP could attract organised crime and of research published by Pinsent Masons LLP which found that HMRC raised almost £1bn in its most serious criminal investigations of tax fraud year-on-year in April 2024. Also included is news of Europol’s report on the benefits and challenges of AI for law enforcement, of the summary response by the FSA Board to ideas for a new form of national level scrutiny of large retailers and of the latest prosecution news from the SFO. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.

Read the latest 49 News articles on Joint enterprise

Top

Trial

��Ӱ��

GLOSSARY