Talk:Common purpose

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

300 year old law?

In the article it states that "In English law, the doctrine derives from R v Swindall and Osborne (1846) 2 Car. & K. 230." Because I am not a legal expert, I do not understand the full meaning of this as it might have in a purely legal context. However, I have a question based on the fact that many sources in the UK describe this as a 300 year old law. See, for example "Revealed: how 300-year-old duellist law is jailing hundreds for 'joint enterprise' killings", Joint enterprise murder: ancient law jailing hundreds, say FOI reports and "Guilty By Association". This seems to be confirmed by the evidence of Professor Jeremy Horder Professor of Criminal Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science when he gave evidence to the UK Parliament Justice Committee on 1 November, 2011 when in answer to Question 119 from the Chair he talks of the origins of the law in the context of duelling, and of how the doctors and seconds attending the duel were also guilty of murder.^[1] Is the article factually correct in that, for example, the way in which the law is currently applied has its roots at this point? Does something extra need to be added to take account of what is obviously a principle that has its ultimate roots in law, further back than this case? Or what?

As I say, I am not an expert in law, just somebody who is curious in light of the recent UK Supreme Court ruling. Kuitan (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to an early example, rather than the first example. Richard75 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, paragraph 13 of the judgment in Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 states "An early example is the case of Hyde (1672), described in Hale’s Pleas of the Crown (1682), vol 1, p 537, and in Foster’s Crown Law, p 354." It then sets out the facts and decision in that 17th Century case. WakelessGrub (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Joint Enterprise Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12 (PDF). London: The Stationery Office Limited. 17 January 2012. p. Ev 20. ISBN 978-0-215-04058-9. Retrieved 21 February 2016.

Copyrighted material

It's against Wikipedia policy, and the law, to quote large chunks of copyrighted work. And it's not reasonable to devote so much text to what some professor said about this subject, when what really matters is what the courts have said about it. Continuing to add this material will be treated as vandalism, and will be reverted. Richard75 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page is being persistently vandalised by an anonymous IP who has been warned before. Richard75 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Richard75 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Support 2016 proposal to merge Joint criminal enterprise and Common purpose; identical or overlapping scope. Klbrain (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Against: while I agree that both articles deal with the same theme, the other one is specifically focused on the subject of war crimes trials, and this one is about the criminal law generally. We don’t normally merge specific articles with the most relevant general article. Richard75 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard75: A very good point. I agree that these could be kept separate if the lede is changed to reflect the broader scope of the article. At the moment, the lede of the article describes the concept only in context of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia , but I agree that the body of the article is much more general and includes the application of the broad concept of common purpose to war crimes. I agree that the application of this concepts to war crimes is a distinct and distinctly notable topic. Klbrain (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; no merge, but added hatnotes to distinguish between the two pages. Klbrain (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Joint Enterprise Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12 (PDF). London: The Stationery Office Limited. 17 January 2012. p. Ev 20. ISBN 978-0-215-04058-9. Retrieved 21 February 2016.

[1]