Case - R v Jogee (2013)

[Date of Submission]

A Brief Introduction

The chosen court case is of the R v Jogee (2013). In this case the defendant is actually not the individual who has committed the crime but is instead the one who was at the time of the criminal act was present at the scene and was the one to provoke the individual who committed the crime. The case is about a murder which took place by the hands of an individual who was provoked by his companion who is the defendant in this case. The defendant is accused of being present at the scene of the crime and of motivating his partner for performing the murder through the use of provoking words. The court convicted the defendant for 20 years of life imprisonment, in the light of the reason that the defendant did not try to stop the murder but instead tried to promote the co-accused for doing the murder, which was performed by the co-accused on the basis of the prevocational words used by the defendant. Although the defendant did not actually performed the act of murder by himself but even then he was a part of the crime under the eyes of the law as for the provoking that he did for the murder to take place, by well knowing that the co-accused was carrying a weapon and was threatening to kill the deceased.

The defendant placed an application for a no case to answer, as there was lack of evidence from the prosecutions side, which based its accusation completely on the verdict of just one witness, who claims to be present at the time of the murder while there is no other proof of the reliability of the witness's claims and further on no proof of the defendant by any how to be involved in the murder. The court however, rejected the defendants claim of no case to answer and instead accused him of the murder as well as of him being present and being motivating for the murderer at the time the when the crime took place.

Furthermore, the judge after listening to the prosecution and the defendant instructed the jury that the co-accused and the defendant were responsible for the deceased's death, in which the co-accused was responsible for the stabbing the deceased while the defendant was responsible for providing the encouragement to the co-accused for stabbing the deceased, while knowing the fact that the co-accused intended to stab the deceased. The defendant claims the dismissal of his appeal of no case to answer to be rejected as wrong, and also that the 20 years conviction should be reduced to 18 years of life imprisonment under the minimum conviction possible as according to the case.

Case Examination

As according to the case under study, the defendant claims that the court's judge has rejected the appeal of no case to answer on the wrong basis, as there was not sufficient evidence present in the case to get ...