Stringer v R

Stringer v R

There was ample evidence for the jury to conclude that the appellants, with knowledge and intent, assisted and encouraged the principal offender by joining in the chase, which was a continuing sequence of events leading to the murder; the judge's directions contained the essential legal ingredients and did not mislead the jury.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Bryan Stringer; Appellant: Ian Stringer; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Secondary Liability, Joint Enterprise, Murder, Aiding and Abetting
Criminal Law Secondary Liability Joint Enterprise Murder Aiding and Abetting

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Bryan Stringer

Appellant

Ian Stringer

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's direction on joint enterprise liability was confusing and incorrect
  2. 2 Whether the judge's summary of the facts was unbalanced
  3. 3 Whether participation in a joint enterprise can be established by conduct prior to the killing

Ratio Decidendi

There was ample evidence for the jury to conclude that the appellants, with knowledge and intent, assisted and encouraged the principal offender by joining in the chase, which was a continuing sequence of events leading to the murder; the judge's directions contained the essential legal ingredients and did not mislead the jury.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed