Simple association or accidental presence during a crime is insufficient for a charge under joint enterprise. A suspect must knowingly assist or encourage the crime and agree to act together with the primary offender for a common purpose. For example, the driver of a getaway vehicle can be charged with robbery under joint enterprise even if an accomplice actually perpetrated the crime.
If one group member deviates from a plan, then joint enterprise may not be applicable because the assistance must be with knowledge. For instance, if a group agrees to vandalize property but one group member assaults and batters a passer-by without knowledge or assent of other members, the doctrine of joint enterprise is unlikely to be applicable.
The question remains whether a particular outcome was reasonably foreseeable or within the scope of a crime. If so, then a prosecutor may nevertheless properly proceed with a joint enterprise charge.
The doctrine of joint enterprise is controversial because a person can be held criminally liable for another's actions. Younger people have been disproportionately affected by the application of joint enterprise in recent years due to an increase in violent crimes committed by groups of youths.
Furthermore, whether suspects were engaged in a joint enterprise is more complex in specific intent crimes such as murder. In such cases, a jury might only hold the group liable up to the point of the crime requiring specific intent.
Prosecutors consider a number of factors when deciding whether to pursue a joint enterprise charge including maturity or age, proportionality of the actual offense to possible sentence, harm to the victim, and premeditation. The prosecution must also be in the public interest.
Given the seriousness of being charged with a crime for which a suspect did not physically perpetrate, a prosecutor may elect to charge the suspect with a lesser crime rather than pursue a charge under joint enterprise if the conditions are not sufficiently persuasive. Additionally, no action for joint enterprise murder is sustainable unless the prosecution also secures a guilty verdict for the primary offender.
As mentioned above, the doctrine of joint enterprise has been controversial for years. All that is, however, about to change. The Supreme Court ruled in February 2016 that the law relating to joint enterprise has been misinterpreted by the Courts for over 30 years. This could open the floodgates in appeals to the Court of Appeal upon joint enterprise.
The decision in the case of R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen will provide any person convicted of an offence under the law relating to joint enterprise a potential ground of appeal.