R v Nehme; R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 3)

The respondents were charged with the murder of two individuals, the murder of one individual in relation to the charge of joint criminal enterprise, and the murder of one individual in relation to the charge of extended joint criminal enterprise. The respondents applied to the High Court to determine whether the trial judge should give particular directions to the jury in relation to the elements of intention and knowledge required to establish the respondents' liability for the relevant offences. The High Court held that the application was not successful. The court held that the decision in Mitchell v The King [2023] HCA 5 did not authoritatively state anything new in relation to joint criminal enterprise or extended joint criminal enterprise outside the context of constructive murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge should be directed to the jury in relation to the element of intention required to establish the respondents' liability for murder as a party to a joint criminal enterprise, and whether the trial judge should be directed to the jury in relation to the element of intention required to establish the respondents' liability for murder as a party to an extended joint criminal enterprise. The court was also asked to consider whether the jury should be directed to the elements of knowledge required to establish the respondents' liability for murder as a party to a joint criminal enterprise, and whether the jury should be directed to the elements of knowledge required to establish the respondents' liability for murder as a party to an extended joint criminal enterprise. The court held that the application was not successful as the decision in Mitchell v The King [2023] HCA 5 did not authoritatively state anything new in relation to joint criminal enterprise or extended joint criminal enterprise outside the context of constructive murder. The court held that the trial judge was not required to give particular directions to the jury in relation to the elements of intention and knowledge required to establish the respondents' liability for the relevant offences. The court held that the directions already given by the trial judge were sufficient to ensure that the jury was properly directed to the elements of intention and knowledge required to establish the respondents' liability for the relevant offences. The application was dismissed.