arbiter
JournalsAccount

OVERWHELMING SUPERVENING ACTS – A CORRECTIVE

A.P. Simester & Findlay Stark

Cambridge Law Journal2025https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197325000078article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

Abstract

In R. v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen , the Supreme Court abolished “joint enterprise liability”, thus removing the need for a doctrine that used to temper the harshness of joint enterprise: the “fundamental difference” rule. The Supreme Court nevertheless allowed this rule to linger on in the form of an “overwhelming supervening act” doctrine. That doctrine has led to the creation of yet another: an “escalation” doctrine. We argue that there is no place in the post-Jogee law of complicity for doctrines based on fundamental difference, overwhelming supervening acts or escalation. This is no mere semantic quibble. It has significant implications for the way in which complicity law should be applied, especially in homicide cases.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197325000078

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{a.p.2025,
  title        = {{OVERWHELMING SUPERVENING ACTS – A CORRECTIVE}},
  author       = {A.P. Simester & Findlay Stark},
  journal      = {Cambridge Law Journal},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197325000078},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

OVERWHELMING SUPERVENING ACTS – A CORRECTIVE

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.