R v. Jogee: A Case for Comparative Study

Abstract

Criminal cases, being almost entirely domestic in their nature, rarely draw comparative attention. But R v. Jogee, decided by the UK Supreme Court in 2016, is exceptional in its nature. It provoked a new discourse on a mental element in complicity in a highly controversial situation where the principal went beyond the scope of what was agreed, or in civil law language, excessu mandati. Following Jogee, common law is likely to move in the direction of implementing in a more coherent way the idea of a subjective fault standard for a mental element in complicity. Paradoxically, civil law systems are now much closer to pre-Jogee jurisprudence so there is good reason to conduct comparative analysis at this point.