English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This Article is a comparative study of the doctrine of common purpose as a ground of criminal liability for the commission of an additional offence under the criminal laws of Jordan and Australia. Despite its various problematic aspects, there is no explicit regulation on this area of criminal complicity in the Jordanian Penal Code 1960 No 16 JPC. Whereas, in NSW although this doctrine is considered in many case laws, yet the approach adopted by the courts in setting its ambit is inconsistent and obscure. This Article considers the substantive law on this aspect of criminal complicity in both jurisdictions, and explores how such criminal liability can be understood in terms of the notion of individual autonomy. To this end, the Article is divided into three sections. In section 1, it addresses the concept and components of individual autonomy, while in Sections 2 and 3 it uses this notion to analyze the common purpose doctrine as a ground of criminal liability in NSW and Jordan. The comparative analysis conducted in this paper shows that the criminal law in NSW holds liable offenders who embark upon a primary criminal venture contemplating as a possible outcome the commission of another incidental offence by the co-offender during the course of carrying out that primary criminal venture. Various different possibilities as to the type of such contemplation are considered in this regard. Comparatively, it is demonstrated that there is no explicit legal provision in the JPC concerning this area of criminal complicity towards which specific suggestions for possible law reform are provided.

Doctrine of Common Purpose as a Ground of Criminal Liability under the Criminal Laws of Jordan and Australia: A Comparative Study