Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[GUT]

I will need to check, but, I'm pretty sure the doctrine of "Joint Enterprise" existed in England in 1931.

Effectively meaning if you go to rob a shop and you accomplice commits murder in the process, even if you have no idea he intended to do so, you are guilty as well.

The Men's Rea is in the intent to commit the robbery.

[GUT]

In fact I THINK, again will need to check, what was known as The Felony Murder Rule, would have still been in place in '31.

[GUT]

I should say.... it was a looooooong time back that I studied law, and probably 15 years sine my last murder trial.

[John G]

I will need to check, but, I'm pretty sure the doctrine of "Joint Enterprise" existed in England in 1931.

Effectively meaning if you go to rob a shop and you accomplice commits murder in the process, even if you have no idea he intended to do so, you are guilty as well.

The Men's Rea is in the intent to commit the robbery.

Hi GUT,

Yes, you are of course correct, the joint enterprise rule would have existed in 1931:see, for example, R v Swindall and Osbourne (1846).

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi GUT,

Yes, you are of course correct, the joint enterprise rule would have existed in 1931:see, for example, R v Swindall and Osbourne (1846).

Thanks GUT, John G and RodCrosby for giving this thread a greater legal gravitas.

Sorry to be the legal philistine, but how does this affect the case? I'm assuming Parry knew he would be in deep water if he had conspired with someone ("M" in Rod's theory) to rob the Wallaces and then M bumped her off.

[John G]

Thanks for that. IANAL, although the Law interests me greatly [I have successfully conducted some civil cases of my own, in court].

I'm still having difficulty reconciling your analysis with the quote from Jogee from Colleton Chambers, given above.

For the sake of argument, assume Parry did have clear foresight, and that the bar was in fact carried into the house by M [maybe even supplied by Parry]. If Parry couldn't be charged with murder, what about manslaughter then?

Just to recap, foresight can be a factor in determining whether there was a tacit agreement to commit murder if the occasion arose:

"If the jury is satisfied that there was an agreed common purpose to commit crime A, and if it is satisfied also that D2 must have foreseen that, in the course of committing Crime A, D1 might well commit crime B, it may in appropriate cases be justified in drawing the conclusion that D2 had the necessary conditional intent that crime B should be committed, if the occasion arose; or in other words that it was within the scope of the plan to which D2 gave his assent and intentional support. But that will be a question of fact for the jury in all the circumstances." ( R v Jogee (2016), para 94.)

This position deviates from the wrongly decided case of Chan Wing-Siu, where foresight was deemed to be the determining factor:

"The long standing pre Chan Wing-Siu practice of inferring intent to assist from a common criminal purpose which includes the further crime, if the occasion were to arise, was always a legitimate one; what was illegitimate was to treat foresight as an inevitable yardstick of common purpose." (ibid, para 87)

[RodCrosby]

Thanks GUT, John G and RodCrosby for giving this thread a greater legal gravitas.

Sorry to be the legal philistine, but how does this affect the case? I'm assuming Parry knew he would be in deep water if he had conspired with someone ("M" in Rod's theory) to rob the Wallaces and then M bumped her off.

Of course, 22-year old Parry would not suddenly be trying to study for a law degree on the night of 20th January! Suffice to say, if my theory of the crime is correct, he had enough general knowledge to calculate he could, most likely would, be facing the long-drop either

a) as accessory, or
b) because the Police might take a shortcut and decide he was in fact the killer.

I'm more interested in the perspective of the Police, and how they would have gone about trying to construct either a) or b) on the evidence they had in front of them [no Parkes, at this stage, remember].

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Yes, you are of course correct, the joint enterprise rule would have existed in 1931:see, for example, R v Swindall and Osbourne (1846).

Thanks John, saves me some (yuck) research.

[GUT]

Just to recap, foresight can be a factor in determining whether there was a tacit agreement to commit murder if the occasion arose:

"If the jury is satisfied that there was an agreed common purpose to commit crime A, and if it is satisfied also that D2 must have foreseen that, in the course of committing Crime A, D1 might well commit crime B, it may in appropriate cases be justified in drawing the conclusion that D2 had the necessary conditional intent that crime B should be committed, if the occasion arose; or in other words that it was within the scope of the plan to which D2 gave his assent and intentional support. But that will be a question of fact for the jury in all the circumstances." ( R v Jogee (2016), para 94.)

This position deviates from the wrongly decided case of Chan Wing-Siu, where foresight was deemed to be the determining factor:

"The long standing pre Chan Wing-Siu practice of inferring intent to assist from a common criminal purpose which includes the further crime, if the occasion were to arise, was always a legitimate one; what was illegitimate was to treat foresight as an inevitable yardstick of common purpose." (ibid, para 87)

Or was negligent as to the possibility I'm pretty sure.

[RodCrosby]

Parkes said he thought Parry's car was a "little Swift..." I wonder if it was like this one, which I think was their smallest model.

http://www.jaguarheritage.com/t/othercars_006

[Mayerling]

Parkes said he thought Parry's car was a "little Swift..." I wonder if it was like this one, which I think was their smallest model.



http://www.jaguarheritage.com/t/othercars_006

Out of curiosity, was the manufacturer's last name "Swift" as in "Jonathan Swift" or "Henry Ford", or was the car named that for it being a fast car?

[RodCrosby]

They started with bicycles, then motorcycles before starting to manufacture cars.

From the logo it seems they imagined their vehicles to be "swift as an arrow..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Motor_Company

http://www.theswiftclub.co.uk/pictures.html

[ColdCaseJury]

Parkes said he thought Parry's car was a "little Swift..." I wonder if it was like this one, which I think was their smallest model.

This is the Swift Ten, I believe, Rod. Depends on the year, of course. An older Swift 10 might have looked more like this (left hand car).

[AmericanSherlock]

Could this case or something similar ever happen nowadays?

Maybe it depends on who you think was guilty.

It is hard to imagine because of modern technology, smart phone, phone cameras, internet etc.

[RodCrosby]

`Still unsolved, fascinating its permutations absolutely typical of the 1930s. Couldn't have happened at any other time, not in precisely the way it did happen... What is interesting is that the evidence, such as it was, could support either the prosecution or the defence depending on how you chose to look at it.′
(P. D. James in The Murder Room, through character Conrad Ackroyd).