Abstract
Replies to the article by David Ormerod and Karl Laird entitled "Jogee: not the end of a legal saga but the start of one?", Crim. L.R. 2016, 8, 539-552, by assessing the impact of the Supreme Court ruling in R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan) on jury directions in joint enterprise cases, including with regard to the defendant's: (1) intention to encourage the perpetrator's actual crime; and (2) manslaughter liability where the collateral crime was murder.