Overwhelming Supervening Acts, Fundamental Differences, and Back Again?

Jogee established that, if the victim was attacked in a manner different to that which accessory envisioned, will not be liable for resulting death, provided fatal act amounted ‘some overwhelming supervening [OSA]… nobody defendant’s shoes could have contemplated might happen and is of such character as relegate his acts history’. further suggests OSA has replaced fundamental difference rule (FDR) used keep foresight test parasitic liability (PAL) cases check, by absolving accessories murder or manslaughter, where principal had caused victim’s death with more lethal weapon dangerous than been foreseen accessory. In Jogee, UKSC appreciated this role FDR, therefore, misguided attempt appease defenders PAL, abolished it along PAL. While they left place its stead, judgment unclear about scope, role, function. Since then, considered on several occasions Court Appeal. However, there still no clarity when ought jury. This paper explore OSA, scope application, relationship FDR. It argued concept remoteness which, like FDR before it, functions corrective constructive manslaughter. aims attribute only those consequences principal’s are sufficiently linked risk set supported assistance encouragement. The concludes fleshing out courts pay greater attention purpose, principles fair attribution underpin it.