Impact case study database

Research conducted by Krebs at Reading has informed a correction of law on PAL/JE and has underpinned a Supreme Court ruling that PAL/JE had been wrongly interpreted for over 30 years. Whereas, before this case, people on the periphery of events leading to someone’s death could all be convicted of murder (and mandatorily imprisoned for life), they will now be convicted only if they can be shown to have intended to assist or encourage murder. Foresight is no longer sufficient for a conviction. This is a very significant change in law, which was widely reported in the media and which informed international doctrinal debate.

Critics of PAL/JE had referred to it as a “lazy law” because it led to guilt and imprisonment without producing evidence of intent. PAL/JE cases have become increasingly controversial over the years, owing to the large number of gang-related killings that have come to court. A large proportion of those convicted have been young men of colour, as reported by the Commons Justice Select Committee (2014). Krebs’ work is therefore also important in terms of securing racial justice.

The change in case-law applies retrospectively as well as prospectively. It opens up opportunities for those convicted under PAL/JE to argue that they would not have been convicted had the standard for conviction been intention to assist or encourage all along. Therefore, the decision in Jogee has had an important impact on the practice of law and on individuals convicted of JE. For example, John Crilly was the first person to have his JE conviction quashed following the Jogee case. Whilst studying for a law degree in prison, he heard about the overturning of the JE law in 2016 and believed it would apply to his case. Since he had not appealed his conviction before, he was able to apply directly to the Court of Appeal for exceptional leave to appeal. This was granted and his appeal on Jogee grounds was successful. His murder conviction was quashed and a re-trial ordered at which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Now a reformed prisoner, he attended the Learning Together event (November 2019) in London where the London Bridge terror attack started. Crilly was praised for his brave actions in confronting the attacker and minimising further loss of life.

A correction of misapplication in law

From September 2015, Krebs acted as academic adviser to Felicity Gerry QC, lead counsel in the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and Privy Council (PC) appeal hearing of Jogee/Ruddock [Section 5, source 1]. Krebs initially contacted Ms Gerry and sent her a copy of her 2015 CLJ paper [Section 3, ref 1], which led to this advisory role and the paper’s citation in written submissions [source 3]. Julian Knowles QC (as he then was), lead counsel for Ruddock, also cited her 2015 paper in oral submissions [source 2]. Krebs was present throughout the hearing and on the day the judgment was handed down. The BBC described the event as “a moment of genuine legal history”. The court’s decision to abolish PAL and replace it with the principles of OAL concurred with what Krebs had argued in her research. Felicity Gerry QC describes Krebs’ research as “instrumental in the presentation of both the above cases” and writes that “the impact of her input cannot be overestimated”. Further, “in order to persuade the Supreme Court to correct the error of law … Krebs’ research, publications and knowledge were invaluable” [source 3]. Since then, Krebs has continued working with Felicity Gerry QC and has been involved in preparing submissions for “over a dozen cases on this topic in six (international) jurisdictions”, with appeals including R v Johnson (Asher) and that of International Criminal Tribunal appeal of former Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic) [sources 5 and 3]. In Gerry’s words, “Dr Krebs’ published research has been invaluable in bringing about all of these outcomes” [source 3].

[Text removed for publication].

Informing international doctrinal debate

The change of law brought about by Jogee informed by Krebs’ research has in turn created further international debate in the form of cases being appealed. In the wake of Jogee, both the High Court of Australia and the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal in two cases brought on the basis of the UKSC decision, in which they reconsidered their positions on JE liability at length. Although both courts ultimately decided to keep their respective principles of JE/PAL, it is clear that Krebs’ contribution to legal debate is now international in reach. She has further added to this international debate by editing a collection [Section 3, ref 7] which dissects the decision in Jogee, subsequent Court of Appeal decisions and case-law from other jurisdictions. With chapters contributed by scholars and practitioners from different jurisdictions, all experts in the area of complicity, the book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the implications of Jogee on practice and theory in this and other common law jurisdictions.

Practitioners – Influencing the application of the research in practice

Krebs’ work has also informed practitioners. To date, she has published four case notes in the Cambridge Law Journal and the Journal of Criminal Law [Section 3, refs 3 and 6] on post-Jogee cases (domestic and international). Two of these have been extensively cited in the leading practitioner textbook Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law (2018).

The law on PAL/JE was misinterpreted by courts for over 30 years. Krebs’ research convinced the Supreme Court to correct this error. It has had significant impact on the practice of law and related decision-making processes of courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where there is potential for the conviction of accessories to a murder. Krebs’ ongoing research reveals the nuances in this area and highlights the difficulties faced by courts in making fair judgements with respect to intent and foresight. Her research has stimulated and informed practitioner debate, and impacted case outcomes on an international scale, making it difficult for courts to wrongfully convict accessories to a crime.