Hearings
England & Wales
[1996] 1 Cr App R 14, CA
30 Oct 1997 [1999] 1 AC 1; [1997] 3 WLR 959; [1997] 4 All ER 545; [1998] 1 Cr App R 261, HL(E) (Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill, Lord Steyn and Lord Hutton)
R v Powell (Anthony)
Additional names
Subject Matter
CRIME — Homicide — Murder — Joint enterprise — Primary party intending to kill or cause serious bodily harm — Whether secondary party's realisation of possibility sufficient to found conviction — Primary party departing from common design by unforeseen action — Whether secondary party guilty of murder or manslaughter
[1997] 3 WLR 959; [1996] 1 Cr App R 14
CRIME — Homicide — Murder — Joint enterprise — Primary party intending to kill or cause serious bodily harm — Whether secondary party's realisation of possibility sufficient to found conviction — Primary party departing from common design by unforeseen action — Whether secondary party guilty of murder or manslaughter
[1999] 1 AC 1; [1997] 3 WLR 959; [1997] 4 All ER 545; [1998] 1 Cr App R 261, HL(E)
Appellate History
R v Powell (Anthony) [1996] 1 Cr App R 14, CA
Decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) affirmed
R v Powell (Anthony) [1999] 1 AC 1; [1997] 3 WLR 959; [1997] 4 All ER 545; [1998] 1 Cr App R 261, HL(E)
Commentary
Blackstones Criminal Practice 2025
Scope of the (Intended) Joint Venture - Fundamental Restatement in Jogee and the Change of Emphasis from Foresight to Intention
A4.11
Scope of the (Intended) Joint Venture - Fundamental Restatement in Jogee and the Change of Emphasis from Foresight to Intention A4.12