Macklin, Murphy and Others v R

R. v. Macklin, Murphy, and Others

Durham Summer Assizes 1838
Durham Summer Assizes — Baron Alderson | 1838

Background

A crowd had assembled and was committing a riot. When constables arrived to disperse the crowd and arrest offenders, the mob resisted violently. Multiple prisoners participated in beating one of the constables — some used sticks, others threw stones, and others struck him with their fists. The constable later died from this collective violence. All the prisoners were charged with murder for their roles in the fatal attack.

Issues

1. When does a violent attack constitute murder versus manslaughter?
2. How does joint liability work when multiple people attack someone together?

The Law of Joint Criminal Enterprise

Baron Alderson established crucial principles that still apply today. First, he explained when violence becomes murder: if a deadly weapon is used, the law infers an intention to kill. Without a deadly weapon, the court must examine whether there was "excessive violence" — factors like a strong person attacking a weak one, continued beating after much injury, or violence so severe that "a rational man would conclude that death must follow."

More importantly for group situations, Alderson articulated the doctrine of common intent: "if several persons act together in pursuance of a common intent, every act done in furtherance of such intent by each of them is, in law, done by all." However, the act must be within the scope of the common purpose. If conspirators planned only to frighten someone but one person shot the victim in the head, that extreme act would affect only the shooter.

The judge instructed the jury to determine whether all prisoners shared a common intent to attack the constables. If so, each would be responsible for all the violence inflicted by the group. If the combined violence would support a murder conviction against one person, it would support murder convictions against all participants.

Key Takeaway

In group violence, you can be held responsible for everything your co-participants do if you're all acting with a common purpose.

This case established that participants in joint criminal enterprises face liability for all acts committed by the group in furtherance of their shared intent, even if they personally used less serious violence. The jury ultimately convicted all defendants of manslaughter rather than murder.