Responsibilities of Joint Criminal Enterprise

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
The doctrine of the extended joint criminal enterprise can be described as the doctrine
for the extension of the purpose of the responsibilities of any individuals participating in a
joint criminal enterprise1. The principles followed in this doctrine can be observed as
including the liabilities of the parties to the joint criminal enterprise for any crime that is
considered to be foreseeable. It is required for the accused to be having the foresight for the
presence of both mens rea and actus reus for the crime that has been committed.2 It is not
required for the accused person to foresee the method in which the crime would be
committed, the foreseeability of the possible harm of specific harm is enough.3 The accused
who has been held as responsible under the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise
would be treated as a main proponent of the first degree and therefore would be attributable
for the chief liability. 4
In the judgment of Miller v The Queen (2016), in context to the complex doctrine of
extended joint criminal liability the High Court was observed to be allowing appeals against
the decision made by the Australian Supreme Court5. In the case, the defendants have been
convicted for the crime of murder by way of extendable joint criminal enterprise because they
had been involved in a confrontation in which one of the accused stabbed and killed an
individual. It illustrates the fact that participation in a criminal offense in any form is bared
by the act of law and in case of abduction, each of the participants must be convicted
concerning the extended joint criminal doctrine. This is to enhance the entire structure and
affiliate a better approach towards justifying the involvement of each of the participants. This
particular doctrine has been considered as a major factor for managing the operational
obligations and withstanding the desired networks efficiently across a criminal program. The
1 McGovern, Lucy. "Extended joint criminal enterprise." Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar
Association Summer 2016 (2016): 17.
2 Smartt, Timothy. "The Doctrine of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise: A Wrong Turn in Australian Common
Law." Melb. UL Rev. 41 (2017): 1324.
3 McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; 130 ALR 26
4 The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1. 236 CLR 397
5 Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380, 424 [129]

2CRIMINAL LAW
availability of this doctrine is based on partnerships across the process of management and its
liability to facilitate a decent judgment across the available structure. The doctrine is also
useful to the victims in managing their allegations and facilitating the whole process
eventually based on desired jurisdictions6. The process of the judgment under this fragment is
more likely to enhance the entire structural parameters and avail a more suitable approach in
the context of one party involved.
On the other hand, this doctrine has been a major reason that is causing issues for the victims
and their approach to justice. Like in consideration of the case Miller v The Queen (2016)
259 CLR 380, 424 [129] some obligations justify the fact that there are responsible reasons
which have led to the involvement of one of the participants7. This leads to the conclusion
that there are some negative implications which are based on the whole operation that is
functional across the process of imparting justice under the extended joint criminal liability
doctrine. The fact that there can be some additional reasons which can lead to a more
significant and valuable approach towards the justice structure. As mentioned in this case of
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380, 424 [129], one of the accused was intoxicated at
the point where actual crime held. This factor justifies his inability to participate and
contribute any positive approach to the crime8.
6 Blunt, Gwilym David. "Is global poverty a crime against humanity?." International
Theory 7, no. 3 (2015): 539-571.
7 Smartt, Timothy. "The Doctrine of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise: A Wrong Turn in
Australian Common Law." Melb. UL Rev. 41 (2017): 1324.
8 of Tolmie, Julia, and Kris Gledhill. "Common Purpose and Conspiracy Liability in New
Zealand: Criminality by Association." Law Context: A Socio-Legal J. 34 (2016): 58.

3CRIMINAL LAW
In case of the crime being conducted across a familiar atmosphere and with familiar
individuals, the intentions remain undiscovered and thus someone who is not an active
participant can be abducted eventually. Availability is just one factor that is taken into
consideration to facilitate justice across this process of judgment. This factor is not suitable as
it cannot retain the true justice spirit across the process9. The available jurisdictions are based
on illustrating a complex process of delivering justice to the process. These factors suggest
string revaluation possibilities that are available across this particular case10. The challenges
and justifications are assessed based on their integral obligations and the possibility to
indulge false acquisitions is also available in this particular perspective. Thus the feasibility
factor lacks extensively under this particular doctrine. There are chances that an innocent
participant can be framed under such conditions and that can lead to a less responsive legal
structure11. The grievances made by one of the participants who have been accused due to the
availability of extended joint criminal liabilities are also based on false allegations. He
concludes that the entire scenario of he being available during the crime was just a
coincidence and even he was intoxicated during the entire crime12. Thus, considering this
9 Wang, Victoria B. "Abolishing Australia's Judicially Enacted SUI GENERIS Doctrine of
Extended Joint Enterprise." Concordia L. Rev. 3 (2018): 67.
10 Ridge, Pauline, and Joachim Dietrich. "Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in
Private Law." The Cambridge Law Journal (2019): 1-26.
11 Boucht, Johan. The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended
Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
12 Ford, Stuart. "A Hierarchy of the Goals of International Criminal Courts." Minn. J. Int'l
L. 27 (2018): 179.

4CRIMINAL LAW
perspective justifies another factor that is based on managing the issues and providing each of
the participants apart from the main accused a fair chance of trail based on such evidence13.
These are responsible for justifying the entire process and associating each of them with the
prime accused is not feasible for a functional legal structure. The availability of such
incidences can be driven through irresponsible approach and participation14. Especially, in
cases such as Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380, 424 [129] where the allegations are
as serious as murder, there must be a proper possibility that can facilitate fair justice for the
whole system. It can help manage the cases more ideally and with more justified arguments15.
The criticism associated with this doctrine is widely appreciated during many related cases.
These initiate a sense of irresponsible approach towards providing justice to the entire
fragment and enabling the processes with understanding the required liabilities all along the
process16. The entire structure is based on incorporating a better value-based justice system
13 Perova, Natalia. "Stretching the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine to the Extreme: When
Culpability and Liability Do Not Match." International Criminal Law Review 16, no. 5
(2016): 761-795.
14 Dyson, M. N. "Principals without distinction." Criminal Law Review 2018, no. 4 (2018).
Albanese, Jay S. "Illegal gambling and organized crime: An analysis of federal convictions in
2014." (2016).
15 Ohlin, Jens David. "The One or the Many." Criminal Law and Philosophy 9, no. 2 (2015):
285-299.
16 Krebs, Beatrice, and Grant Lamond. "Joint criminal enterprise in English and German law."
PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2015.

5CRIMINAL LAW
and it can only be attained by promoting fair chances to each one of the participants in a
criminal process17. The whole process is associated with justifications and assumptions18. The
entire process is to be examined and evaluated based on individual opinions rather than
putting serious charges such as murder based on availability or participation19. In scenarios
such as depicted under the case Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380, 424 [129], it can be
assessed that there are significant changes that any one of the participants may have been
allegedly engaged based on false proposals despite the actual incidence20. Thus the need to
evaluate better reachability and justification based on actual evidence is to be examined for
preparing a conclusion over this particular subject21. This can be evident in facilitating a
responsive approach and guideline that is incorporated with sufficient information over the
case.
17 Casale, Davide. "V36 I1 Joint Responsibility of Enterprises for the Health and Safety of
Their Contractors’ Workers: Recent Developments in Italian Law." Members-only
Library (2015).
18 Lohne, Kjersti. "NGOs for International Justice: Criminal or Victims' Justice?." The
Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing (2018).
19 Baaz, Mikael. "Bringing the Khmer Rouge to trial: an extraordinary experiment in
international criminal law." Comparative Law, Scandinavian Studies in Law 61 (2015): 291-
338.
20 Stewart, James G., and Asad Kiyani. "The Ahistoricism of Legal Pluralism in International
Criminal Law." The American Journal of Comparative Law 65, no. 2 (2017): 393-449.
21 Rule, Constructive Murder and Is This Where Their. "Before the High Court." Sydney Law
Review 39 (2017): 245.

6CRIMINAL LAW
Volunteering the crime despite knowing the actual planning and possibilities are to be
punished under this particular doctrine22. That is something each of the cases needs to analyze
and understand, but despite that, as the obligations are being made just over the participation
factor, it cannot be justified with actual prediction23. An individual who is not aware of the
actual intentions is to be placed under less significant legal obligation as they are not directly
or indirectly involved in the crime scenario24. For instance, in case the participants are
intoxicated or manipulated under specific conditions, the obligations are limited and thus
these cannot be considered sufficient to avail a better understanding of the concerns25. These
attributes must be concluded to make a serious justification based on the assumptions and can
facilitate better judicial obligation to such incidences. The availability of such countering
arguments plays a major role in facilitating the lacking ideology that is associated with this
doctrine26.
22 Duffy, Helen. "The Practice of Shared Responsibility about Detention and Interrogation
Abroad: The 'Extraordinary Rendition'Programme." SHARES Research Paper78 (2016): 16.
23 Belk, Russell. "Ownership: The extended self and the extended object." In Psychological
ownership and consumer behavior, pp. 53-67. Springer, Cham, 2018.
24 Sergi, Anna. "Organised crime in English criminal law: Lessons from the United States on
conspiracy and criminal enterprise." Journal of Money Laundering Control 18, no. 2 (2015):
182-201.
25 Dodson, Margaret. "Bruton on balance: standardizing redacted codefendant confessions
through Federal Rule of Evidence 403." Vand. L. Rev. 69 (2016): 803.
26 Lahti, Raimo Otto Kalervo. "Finnish Report on Individual Liability for Business
Involvement in International Crimes." Revue Internationale de droit pénal. (2018).

7CRIMINAL LAW
This doctrine and its justifications based on common involvement possibility across the
process are based on facilitating better ideologies which can be assessed eventually to
formulate a better outcome and establish a more sufficient judicial structure27. Judiciary is
based on managing such operations which can be assessed to facilitate equal opportunities for
everyone across the system28. In such cases, the obligations are limited and thus any of the
falsely accused participants cannot apply for a fair trial. The availability of this doctrine can
eventually lead to their conviction and ultimately guilty of the act which might not have been
committed by them29. Thus to manage the obligations and retain a better approach towards
the desired networks are based on facilitating better analysis of the presented situation and the
relative obligations concerned to the issue30. The aspects are limited and are based on
fragmented developments all along the process31. A perfectly lawful approach would be to
analyze each of the participant's and their respective perspectives towards the crime which
27 Egelman, Zoe. "Punishment and Protection, Two Sides of the Same Sword: The Problem of
International Criminal Law Under the Refugee Convention." Harv. Int'l LJ 59 (2018): 461.
28 Kedia, Vineet. "Nullum crimen sine lege in International criminal law: myth or fact."
International Journal of International Law 1, no. 2 (2016): 1-3.
29 Fairlie, Megan A. "The Abiding Problem of Witness Statements in International Criminal
Trials." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 50 (2017): 75.
30 Smith, Russell G. "Responding to organized crime through intervention in recruitment
pathways." Can we forestall terrorism and frustrate organized crime using (2018): 39.
31 Payne, L., Gabriel Pereira, L. Bernal Bermudez, and J. Doz Costas. "Can a treaty on
business and human rights help achieve transitional justice goals?." Homa Publica–
International Journal on Human Rights and Business 1, no. 2 (2017).

8CRIMINAL LAW
has been committed32. This is to ensure the fact that there are significant ideologies and
assumptions related to a crime event and thus to maintain an efficient justice system, there
must be an efficiently regulated ideology in support of the common purpose doctrine33.
Putting each of the participants across a similar perspective can be unlawful as it would
weaken the basic soul of justice across the related perspective34. The entire scenario is built
over facilitating better outcomes and efficiently fragmented structure to analyze the facts and
associate better outcomes related to the concerned subject35. The law must be sufficient to
differentiate between just participants and the real culprits to avail of a significant justice
across the process. In the current dimension, it is delivering only a fraction of the total
obligation which is associated with the court of law36. A review would be a fair chance for
32 Squires, Peter. "Voodoo Liability: Joint Enterprise prosecution as an aspect of intensified
criminalization." Onati Socio-Legal Series 6, no. 4 (2016).
33 Lynch, Andrew, and George Williams. "The high court on constitutional law: The 2016
and French court statistics." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 1468.
34, Allison, Matthew L. "To Curb or Not to Curb: Applying Honeycutt to the Judicial
Overreach of Money Judgment Forfeitures." University of Baltimore Law Review 48, no. 2
(2019): 4.
35 Wilson, Richard Ashby. "Propaganda and History in International Criminal
Trials." Journal of International Criminal Justice 14, no. 3 (2016): 519-541.
36 Chinen, Mark A. "The co-evolution of autonomous machines and legal responsibility." Va.
JL & Tech. 20 (2016): 338.

9CRIMINAL LAW
each of the participants under this case, apart from the actual accused37. The court must
provide them with the opportunity to facilitate their point of view and it might get this case a
new significance to conclude. However, the current judgment remains according to the
common purpose and the joint criminal enterprise fragment across the process. It provides a
limited scope of justice for the other participants and thus can be considered as the limited
form of justice being delivered across the process38. The entire system of justice is based on
associating significant ideologies and perceptions made over the doctrine but a
reconsideration can change that and avail real scenarios across the court. The incidental crime
factor can be of major use in speeding up the proceedings at a court but to avail a fully
significant justice system, there must be suitable conclusions that can drive equal
opportunities for each of the parties involved39. The limitations are to be excluded with this
judgment and a more suitable approach is to be designed by reconsidering the grievances
from the participants40. Even after providing a fair trial based opportunity, if there is evidence
that suggests their guilt, they can be treated with significant legal actions.
37 Stahn, Carsten. "Daedalus or Icarus? Footprints of International Criminal Justice Over a
Quarter of a Century." Footprints of International Criminal Justice Over a Quarter of a
Century (September 27, 2016) (2016).
38 Krebs, Beatrice. "Mens Rea in Joint Enterprise: A Role for Endorsement?." The Cambridge
Law Journal 74, no. 3 (2015): 480-504.
39 Stahn, Carsten. "Liberals vs Romantics: Challenges of an emerging corporate international
criminal law." Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 50 (2018): 91.
40 Smith, Robert, and Gerard McElwee. "Developing qualitative research streams relating to
an illegal rural enterprise: reflections on researching qualitatively at the margins of
entrepreneurship research." International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research 21, no. 3 (2015): 364-388.

10CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography
McGovern, Lucy. "Extended joint criminal enterprise." Bar News: The Journal of the NSW
Bar Association Summer 2016 (2016): 17.
Smartt, Timothy. "The Doctrine of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise: A Wrong Turn in
Australian Common Law." Melb. UL Rev. 41 (2017): 1324.
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; 130 ALR 26
The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1. 236 CLR 397
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380, 424 [129]
Blunt, Gwilym David. "Is global poverty a crime against humanity?." International Theory 7,
no. 3 (2015): 539-571.
Smartt, Timothy. "The Doctrine of Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise: A Wrong Turn in
Australian Common Law." Melb. UL Rev. 41 (2017): 1324.
Tolmie, Julia, and Kris Gledhill. "Common Purpose and Conspiracy Liability in New
Zealand: Criminality by Association." Law Context: A Socio-Legal J. 34 (2016): 58.
Wang, Victoria B. "Abolishing Australia's Judicially Enacted SUI GENERIS Doctrine of
Extended Joint Enterprise." Concordia L. Rev. 3 (2018): 67.
Ridge, Pauline, and Joachim Dietrich. "Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in
Private Law." The Cambridge Law Journal (2019): 1-26.
Bouchet, Johan. The Limits of Asset Confiscation: On the Legitimacy of Extended
Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
Ford, Stuart. "A Hierarchy of the Goals of International Criminal Courts." Minn. J. Int'l L. 27
(2018): 179.

11CRIMINAL LAW
Perova, Natalia. "Stretching the Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine to the Extreme: When
Culpability and Liability Do Not Match." International Criminal Law Review 16, no. 5
(2016): 761-795.
Dyson, M. N. "Principals without distinction." Criminal Law Review 2018, no. 4 (2018).
Albanese, Jay S. "Illegal gambling and organized crime: An analysis of federal convictions in
2014." (2016).
Ohlin, Jens David. "The One or the Many." Criminal Law and Philosophy 9, no. 2 (2015):
285-299.
Krebs, Beatrice, and Grant Lamond. "Joint criminal enterprise in English and German law."
PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2015.
Casale, Davide. "V36 I1 Joint Responsibility of Enterprises for the Health and Safety of
Their Contractors’ Workers: Recent Developments in Italian Law." Members-only
Library (2015).
Lohne, Kjersti. "NGOs for International Justice: Criminal or Victims' Justice?." The
Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing (2018).
Baaz, Mikael. "Bringing the Khmer Rouge to trial: an extraordinary experiment in
international criminal law." Comparative Law, Scandinavian Studies in Law 61 (2015): 291-
338.
Stewart, James G., and Asad Kiyani. "The Ahistoricism of Legal Pluralism in International
Criminal Law." The American Journal of Comparative Law 65, no. 2 (2017): 393-449.
Rule, Constructive Murder, and Is This Where Their. "Before the High Court." Sydney Law
Review 39 (2017): 245.

12CRIMINAL LAW
Duffy, Helen. "The Practice of Shared Responsibility in relation to Detention and
Interrogation Abroad: The ‘Extraordinary Rendition’Programme." SHARES Research
Paper78 (2016): 16.
Belk, Russell. "Ownership: The extended self and the extended object." In Psychological
ownership and consumer behavior, pp. 53-67. Springer, Cham, 2018.
Sergi, Anna. "Organised crime in English criminal law: Lessons from the United States on
conspiracy and criminal enterprise." Journal of Money Laundering Control 18, no. 2 (2015):
182-201.
Dodson, Margaret. "Bruton on balance: standardizing redacted codefendant confessions
through Federal Rule of Evidence 403." Vand. L. Rev. 69 (2016): 803.
Lahti, Raimo Otto Kalervo. "Finnish Report on Individual Liability for Business Involvement
in International Crimes." Revue internationale de droit pénal. (2018).
Egelman, Zoe. "Punishment and Protection, Two Sides of the Same Sword: The Problem of
International Criminal Law Under the Refugee Convention." Harv. Int'l LJ 59 (2018): 461.
Kedia, Bineet. "Nullum crimen sine lege in International criminal law: myth or
fact." International Journal of International Law 1, no. 2 (2016): 1-3.
Fairlie, Megan A. "The Abiding Problem of Witness Statements in International Criminal
Trials." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 50 (2017): 75.
Smith, Russell G. "Responding to organised crime through intervention in recruitment
pathways." Can we forestall terrorism and frustrate organised crime by means of (2018): 39.
Payne, L., Gabriel Pereira, L. Bernal Bermudez, and J. Doz Costas. "Can a treaty on business
and human rights help achieve transitional justice goals?." Homa Publica–International
Journal on Human Rights and Business 1, no. 2 (2017).

13CRIMINAL LAW
Squires, Peter. "Voodoo Liability: Joint Enterprise prosecution as an aspect of intensified
criminalisation." Onati Socio-Legal Series 6, no. 4 (2016).
Lynch, Andrew, and George Williams. "The high court on constitutional law: The 2016 and
French court statistics." UNSWLJ 40 (2017): 1468.
Allison, Matthew L. "To Curb or Not to Curb: Applying Honeycutt to the Judicial Overreach
of Money Judgment Forfeitures." University of Baltimore Law Review 48, no. 2 (2019): 4.
Wilson, Richard Ashby. "Propaganda and History in International Criminal Trials." Journal
of International Criminal Justice 14, no. 3 (2016): 519-541.
Chinen, Mark A. "The co-evolution of autonomous machines and legal responsibility." Va.
JL & Tech. 20 (2016): 338.
Stahn, Carsten. "Daedalus or Icarus? Footprints of International Criminal Justice Over a
Quarter of a Century." Footprints of International Criminal Justice Over a Quarter of a
Century (September 27, 2016) (2016).
Krebs, Beatrice. "Mens Rea in Joint Enterprise: A Role for Endorsement?." The Cambridge
Law Journal 74, no. 3 (2015): 480-504.
Stahn, Carsten. "Liberals vs Romantics: Challenges of an emerging corporate international
criminal law." Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 50 (2018): 91.
Smith, Robert, and Gerard McElwee. "Developing qualitative research streams relating to
illegal rural enterprise: reflections on researching qualitatively at the margins of
entrepreneurship research." International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research 21, no. 3 (2015): 364-388.

14CRIMINAL LAW