Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2004

Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2004

On the assumed facts, H did not foresee the possibility of physical injury or death to R, nor the deliberate discharge of a firearm at R. The act which caused death was fundamentally different from the act contemplated by H. Therefore, H was not a party to the joint enterprise which led to the unlawful killing and is not guilty of manslaughter.

Parties
Referrer: Attorney General; Acquitted Person: H; Co Defendant: K; Co Defendant: C; Victim: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference / Attorney General’s Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972
Outcome
Reference answered: The conclusion reached by Sir Stephen Mitchell was correct on the assumed facts; H not guilty of manslaughter. Second question not answered for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Joint Enterprise, Manslaughter, Murder, Secondary Liability, Scope of Joint Enterprise, Mens Rea
Criminal Law Joint Enterprise Manslaughter Murder Secondary Liability Scope of Joint Enterprise Mens Rea

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Referrer

H

Acquitted Person

K

Co Defendant

C

Co Defendant

R

Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference / Attorney General’s Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a secondary party to a joint enterprise who contemplates an act intended to frighten (e.g. discharge of a firearm) is guilty of manslaughter if the principal carries out the act with intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm, thus causing death
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution may present its case at retrial on facts establishing guilt of manslaughter as a lesser included offence of murder

Ratio Decidendi

On the assumed facts, H did not foresee the possibility of physical injury or death to R, nor the deliberate discharge of a firearm at R. The act which caused death was fundamentally different from the act contemplated by H. Therefore, H was not a party to the joint enterprise which led to the unlawful killing and is not guilty of manslaughter.

Court Disposition

Reference answered: The conclusion reached by Sir Stephen Mitchell was correct on the assumed facts; H not guilty of manslaughter. Second question not answered for lack of jurisdiction.