The Law Classroom

Facts

In McAuliffe v The Queen, the defendants, brothers John and Michael McAuliffe, participated in a joint criminal enterprise to assault a group of people in a park. During the altercation, one victim was fatally stabbed. The prosecution argued that the brothers were liable for murder under the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise, even though it was unclear which brother inflicted the fatal wound or if they foresaw the possibility of a weapon being used.

Issue

The key issue was whether the defendants could be held criminally liable for murder under the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise. Specifically, the High Court examined whether participants in a joint criminal enterprise could be liable for crimes committed by co-participants that were within the scope of a common purpose, even if they did not directly commit or intend the specific act (murder).

Decision

The High Court unanimously held that under the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise, a participant in a joint criminal enterprise can be liable for a crime committed by another participant if the crime was a possible outcome of the agreed criminal venture. The Court clarified that liability arises if the accused foresaw the possibility of the crime occurring during the enterprise and still participated. In this case, the brothers foresaw the possibility of serious harm, including the use of a weapon, making them liable for murder.

Outcome

The McAuliffe decision established a significant precedent in Australian criminal law, solidifying the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise. It allows prosecutors to hold co-participants accountable for serious crimes, like murder, committed during a joint enterprise, even without direct intent, provided the crime was a foreseeable consequence. This precedent has been widely applied in Australian common law jurisdictions, though it has faced criticism for potentially casting too wide a net of liability.