News · Assault and complicity
Charged with an attack you did not carry out.
When police charge several people over a single group assault, and each is charged with the wounding even though only one blow was struck, the law of joint criminal enterprise is doing the work. It is one of the most misunderstood rules in criminal law, and it is why "I never touched him" is not always an answer.
By Aaron Kernaghan · Published 29 July 2026
The news, in summary.
In the early hours of Saturday 25 July 2026, a teenager was assaulted by a group of people on King Street, Newtown, and was taken to hospital with stab wounds. An 18-year-old man was arrested at the scene and charged with affray. This week, police said three 17-year-old boys were arrested and each charged with wounding a person with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, affray, assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, and custody of a knife in a public place. Two knives were recovered. Each was refused bail to appear in a children's court.
Those matters are before the court and each person charged is presumed innocent. Nobody is named here, and what follows is about the law, not any individual.
The point of legal interest is how one stab wound produces several people each charged with the wounding. Only one hand, or at most two, held a knife. Yet the charge of wounding with intent can be laid against each member of a group. The rule that allows this is joint criminal enterprise, and it catches a lot of people by surprise.
What is joint criminal enterprise in NSW?
Joint criminal enterprise, sometimes called common purpose, is a rule of the common law. It says that where two or more people agree to commit a crime and then take part in carrying it out, each of them is guilty of that crime, whatever role each one played. The person who lands the blow and the person who came along to back them up are, in law, on the same footing.
The leading case is McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108. Two brothers and a third young man went to a park intending to assault people. During the attack, the victim was struck and went over a cliff edge and died. The High Court held that each member of the group could be guilty of the killing because they had a shared plan to attack, and the death happened in carrying out that plan. The court explained that the parties to a joint criminal enterprise are each responsible for the acts done to carry it out, whether or not they personally did the act.
The agreement is the heart of it. It does not have to be a plan made in advance, and it does not have to be in words. A shared purpose can form in a moment, on a footpath, and be proved by what the group then did together. A nod, a move to surround someone, joining in a rush at a person, all can be evidence of a common purpose.
Can you be charged if you did not do the stabbing?
Yes. This is the part most people find hard to accept. If you agreed to a group attack and took part in it, you can be charged with the wounding even though someone else held the knife. The Crown does not have to prove which member of the group struck the blow. It has to prove there was a shared plan and that you were in it.
This solves a problem that used to let groups escape. In a fast, chaotic fight, it can be impossible to say whose hand caused the injury. Without the joint enterprise rule, each person could point at the others and no one would be proved to have done it. The rule closes that gap by making the agreement, not the identity of the striker, the thing the Crown must prove.
It is not limitless. Being nearby is not enough. A person who happened to be present, or who was part of the same crowd but not part of any plan to attack, is not a party to a joint enterprise. The line is between sharing the purpose and merely being there. That line is where most of these cases are fought.
What does "in company" mean in a NSW assault charge?
Joint criminal enterprise is a rule about who is guilty. "In company" is a separate idea that makes an offence more serious when it is done in a group. Several NSW offences have an "in company" form that carries a higher maximum penalty.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is the clearest example. Under section 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) it carries five years. Under section 59(2), when the same assault is committed in company, the maximum rises to seven years. The idea is that a victim faced by a group suffers something worse than a one-on-one assault: the fear of numbers, and less chance of escape or help. The law treats that added menace as an aggravating feature.
To be "in company", the people have to be physically present together and sharing the common purpose, so that the victim is confronted by the combined force of the group. They do not all have to throw a punch. A person who stands with the group as part of the attack is acting in company even if they never touch the victim. This is why an "in company" count and a joint enterprise argument often travel together in the same case.
What is extended joint criminal enterprise?
The basic rule covers the crime the group agreed to. Extended joint criminal enterprise covers a crime that goes beyond the plan. A member of the group can be liable for that further crime if, when they took part, they foresaw it as a possible result of carrying out the agreed plan, and kept going anyway.
The group assault is the standard example. Say a group agrees to give someone a beating with fists. During the fight one member pulls out a knife and wounds the victim. The wounding was not the plan. But if the others foresaw the possibility that a weapon might be used, they can be liable for the wounding under the extended rule. What matters is foresight of the possibility, not agreement to it.
Australia kept this rule when others dropped it. In Miller v The Queen [2016] HCA 30, the High Court declined to follow the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which had cut back extended common purpose in R v Jogee. The High Court held that the Australian rule set in McAuliffe should stand. So in NSW, foresight of the possibility of the further crime remains enough to fix a person with liability for it. This is often the hardest part of a group case for the defence, and the most important to test.
What must the prosecution prove for a joint criminal enterprise?
For a basic joint criminal enterprise, the Crown must prove four things beyond reasonable doubt: that there was an agreement or understanding between two or more people to commit a crime; that the accused was a party to that agreement; that the accused took part in the enterprise in some way; and that the crime was committed while the agreement was on foot.
The agreement can be proved by inference from conduct. Nobody expects a written plan. Courts look at how the group moved and acted: did they arrive together, target the same person, act in a coordinated way, leave together. The Judicial Commission's bench book on complicity sets out how a jury is directed on these questions.
For extended joint criminal enterprise, there is a fifth thing: that the accused personally foresaw the further crime as a possible outcome of the plan. Foresight is judged from the accused's own state of mind, not from what a reasonable person would have expected. That makes it a real question of fact, and one that can turn on what the accused knew, such as whether they knew a knife was being carried.
Can you withdraw from a joint criminal enterprise?
Yes, and it can be a full answer to the charge, but the law asks for more than a change of heart. To withdraw, a person generally has to communicate that they are out, before the crime is committed, and where they can, take steps to undo what they set in motion.
Walking away in silence once the violence starts is usually not enough. Nor is a private decision to have no more to do with it. The clearer the person's earlier role, the more they have to do to pull out of it. Telling the others plainly that they are leaving, refusing to go on, or trying to stop the attack can be enough, depending on the facts and the timing. The earlier and the more definite the withdrawal, the stronger it is.
Withdrawal matters most in the extended cases. A person who foresaw that a weapon might come out, but who then removed themselves from the plan before the wounding, may fall outside the enterprise for the further crime. This is a fact-heavy inquiry, and it is one of the first things worth mapping out in a group matter.
Joint enterprise, accessories, and young people.
Joint criminal enterprise is not the only way the law reaches a person who did not strike the blow. A person who helps or encourages another's crime can be charged as an accessory. Under sections 345 and 346 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures an offence is liable to the same punishment as the principal offender. The difference is that a joint enterprise rests on a shared plan and treats each party as a principal, while accessorial liability rests on helping or encouraging someone else's crime. In practice the Crown often runs both, because the same facts can support either path.
Where the accused are young, the rules still apply, but the setting changes. Children aged 10 to 13 are protected by the presumption of doli incapax, which the Crown must rebut by proving the child knew the act was seriously wrong. Young people are dealt with in the Children's Court and sentenced under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which pulls in favour of options short of detention. Bail for a young person charged with a serious offence brings its own considerations, and we cover how the courts approach bail for juveniles in group assault cases in a companion note.
What we do for clients charged as part of a group.
Start with the agreement. In a group case the Crown's whole theory turns on proving a shared plan. So the first work is to test it. What actually shows this person agreed to attack anyone, as opposed to being present, or arriving with a group, or reacting to something in front of them. Much of the answer sits in CCTV, phone material, and the accounts of witnesses, and it has to be gone through frame by frame.
Then the further crime. Where the charge is a wounding that went beyond a plan to fight, the extended enterprise question is whether this client foresaw the possibility of a weapon. That is personal to them. Did they know a knife was there. What does the evidence really show about their state of mind. And did they withdraw before it happened. These are the questions that decide whether a person who never held a knife is convicted of the wounding.
There is also room to run self-defence or to press for a lesser charge where the injury or intent is not made out. If police have charged you or your child over a group incident, our guide to the first thirty days after a charge sets out what matters, and the first step is always the same: say nothing to police until you have spoken to a lawyer.
Frequently asked.
What is joint criminal enterprise in NSW?
Joint criminal enterprise is a common law rule that makes everyone who agrees to commit a crime, and takes part in it, equally guilty of that crime, whatever part each played. It is also called common purpose. If two or more people agree to attack someone and one of them lands the blow, all of them can be convicted of the assault, not just the person whose hand did the act. The leading case is McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108.
Can you be charged if you did not do the stabbing?
Yes. Under joint criminal enterprise, a person who agreed to a group attack and took part in it can be charged with wounding even if someone else held the knife. The Crown does not have to prove which member of the group struck the blow. It has to prove there was an agreement to commit the crime and that the accused took part with that shared intention. Whose hand did the wounding goes to the facts, not to whether the offence can be charged.
What does "in company" mean in a NSW assault charge?
"In company" means the offence was committed with at least one other person present and sharing the common purpose, so that the victim faced the added menace of numbers. It is an aggravating form of the offence. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries five years under section 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, but seven years under section 59(2) when it is done in company. The people do not all have to strike; presence as part of the group is enough.
What is extended joint criminal enterprise?
Extended joint criminal enterprise covers a further crime that goes beyond the original plan. A person is liable for that further crime if they foresaw it as a possible result of carrying out the agreed plan and kept taking part anyway. So if a group agrees to a bashing and one member produces a knife and wounds the victim, the others can be liable for the wounding if they foresaw the possibility that a weapon might be used. The High Court confirmed this rule in Miller v The Queen [2016] HCA 30.
What must the prosecution prove for a joint criminal enterprise?
The Crown must prove an agreement or understanding between two or more people to commit a crime, that the accused was a party to that agreement, that the accused took part in some way, and that the crime was committed while the agreement was on foot. The agreement does not have to be in words or worked out in advance. It can be reached on the spot and shown by what people did. For extended joint criminal enterprise, the Crown must also prove the accused foresaw the further crime as a possibility.
Can you withdraw from a joint criminal enterprise?
Yes, but withdrawal has to be real and, where practical, communicated to the others before the crime is committed. Simply standing back at the last second, or leaving without a word once the violence has started, is usually not enough. The law asks whether the person did what they reasonably could to undo their earlier participation, such as telling the others they were out or taking steps to stop the crime. Genuine, timely withdrawal can take a person outside the enterprise.
What is the difference between joint criminal enterprise and being an accessory?
In a joint criminal enterprise the participants share a common purpose and each is treated as a principal offender, equally guilty of the agreed crime. An accessory who aids, abets, counsels or procures an offence under sections 345 and 346 of the Crimes Act 1900 is liable to the same punishment as the principal, but on a different footing: they helped or encouraged another person's crime rather than sharing in a joint plan. In many group cases the Crown runs both, because the facts can support either path to liability.
To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.
This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Good Legal Lawyers, as at 29 July 2026. It is commentary and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. Any matter referred to may be before the court and any person charged is presumed innocent. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.
More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.
Sources: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33, 59, 93C, 345, 346 · Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 11C · McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108 on JADE · Miller v The Queen [2016] HCA 30 on JADE · Judicial Commission of NSW, Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, Complicity · NSW Police News, Newtown stabbing charges, July 2026