ACCESSORY LIABILITY: PERSISTING IN ERROR

Autor:	Beatrice Krebs
Rok vydání:	2017
Předmět:	Majority opinion Joint criminal enterprise biology media_common.quotation_subject Miller Doctrine High Court biology.organism_classification Supreme court Dissenting opinion Argument Law Sociology media_common
Zdroj:	The Cambridge Law Journal. 76:7-11
ISSN:	1469-2139 0008-1973
DOI:	10.1017/s0008197317000150
Popis:	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.
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_________::a6572de8c39efcded7d8fb10b16a85e4 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197317000150 Zobrazit plný text záznamu