Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Divided by a Common Purpose

摘要

The appellant was a member of the triads. Following an order from his boss to 'chop' members of a rival organisation, he went searching for victims. When fellow gang members found some of their rivals, he went to join in their attack. The victim was fatally injured before the appellant arrived at the scene. The appellant's murder conviction was based on his participation in the joint enterprise to 'chop' their rivals, with the court noting that his involvement constituted encouragement to other members of his gang. These facts do not necessarily call for an analysis in terms of joint enterprise liability (as opposed to aiding and abetting), as the court readily accepts (at [100]), but then neither did the facts of Jogee. Both cases went to appeal because the robustness of the joint enterprise principles operating in their respective jurisdictions needed examining by their highest courts-in England because public and academic pressure to revise parasitic accessorial liability (PAL) had grown overwhelming; in Hong Kong because Jogee had thrown the correctness of the doctrine into doubt.