Extended Common Purpose

Extended common purpose is a criminal law doctrine under which a person can be held responsible for criminal acts that are carried out by others if they were a party to an agreement to carry out criminal conduct, even where these acts go beyond the scope of the original agreement. This page deals with extended common purpose.  

What is common purpose?

Under the doctrine of common purpose, a person can be found guilty of offences where someone else committed the physical elements of the offence if they were a party to an agreement with one or more others to carry out the criminal conduct.

An agreement between parties may be made explicitly and verbally, or it may be implied through conduct. It exists wherever two or more persons have an understanding or agreement to carry out a criminal act.

Situations where a person is likely to be found guilty on the basis of common purpose include the following:

• Where a person carries equipment to a house so that another person can break into the house and steal from it.
• Where a person keeps watch outside a shop while another person breaks in.
• Where a person drives the getaway car after others have committed an offence.

What is extended common purpose?

Under the doctrine of extended common purpose, a person can be found guilty of offences that are outside of the scope of the agreement that they had with other persons if they foresaw the offence being committed and did not withdraw their agreement.

Withdrawing from a common purpose

When a person forms a common purpose with others to commit a criminal offence and the offence is committed, the person will be found guilty if the court is satisfied that they were part of the agreement and did not withdraw from the agreement before the offence occurred.

However, a person may withdraw from an agreement before the offence is committed, they will be found not guilty. A person may withdraw from a criminal agreement through words or through actions. If the court is satisfied that a person said or did enough to make it clear to the other group members that they no longer agreed to be involved in the criminal conduct, it will find the person not guilty of the offence.

Extended common purpose: McAuliffe

The doctrine of extended common purpose was first recognised in Australian criminal law in the 1995 High Court of Australia decision of McAuliffe v The Queen.  

In that case, three youths went to a park near Bondi beach with the intention of assaulting a stranger, in an attack motivated by homophobia. One of the youths had a knife and another, a stick. The three attacked a man standing near the cliffs, with the first two youths kicking him and hitting him with the stick. The third then kicked the man in the chest, causing him to fall from the cliff and die. The youth who had delivered the fatal kick pleaded guilty to murder. The other two youths were found guilty of murder on the basis of extended common purpose.

The court found that all three men were responsible for the murder as all of them had agreed to hurt someone, and the youth who had delivered the final kick had intended to cause serious harm. The court found that all three youths knew that the infliction of serious harm was possible during the offending in which they had agreed to participate.

As the two youths who did not deliver the fatal kick had foreseen the possibility of death or serious harm being inflicted in the course of the assault, and had continued to participate, they were also guilty of murder.  

Controversy around extended common purpose

The adoption of the doctrine of extended common purpose by Australian courts since 1996 has been controversial. Some lawyers and researchers argue that the doctrine derives from a misreading of earlier case law and that the decision in McAuliffe should be overturned. Others argue that the doctrine is over-extended in its application or that it is inconsistent with the rule that criminal intention is required for criminal responsibility.  

The doctrine has been defended as necessary to ensure that people are held responsible for causing harm. In the 2016 High Court decision of Miller, the doctrine was again considered and retained.  However, in the UK, the doctrine has been abolished.

If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.