Laws that would’ve affected the case


lawExtradition act 2003

The definition as stated on explains that.. ‘Extradition is the formal process where one country asks another to return a person in order to stand trail or to serve a sentence.’

From –

My thoughts

The man who murdered Afolabi Oyedele was never found. His accomplices served time but they refused to give up his name or identity when questioned by the police. The investigations went on and the police found out that he fled the country and reportedly died a few years later. Nothing is 100% conclusive and the murderer has never been brought to trail or justice 22 years later (According to Yomi, Afolabi’s younger brother). This extradition law came into effect 9 years on after Afolabi’s death. Even though the murderer was never really identified I’am sure this law and the increase in technology and camera surveillance would’ve helped bring the killer to justice in 2016.

Application to relevant case

There has been various similar high profile cases when a perpetrator has fled the country of his crime in the hopes to escape prosecution for example when Roman Polanski a well known hollywood film director, paid bail, fled from America and lived in Paris for more than three decades ‘refusing to return to the US even when he won an Oscar in 2002 for The Pianist’. (Esther Addley, The guardian, 2009). He allegedly raped a 13 year old girl in 1997. The irony is he was finally arrested 31 years later in his home country of Switzerland after they acted on a warrant which was first issued in 1978.

The doctrine of joint enterprise 2011/2012

Although the courts and academics have over the years debated over the overall meaning of the common law doctrine of joint enterprise, it is duly noted that joint enterprise can be seen as an aspect or form of secondary liability. Joint enterprise is applied where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to a joint enterprise either be principal or secondary, it is no longer an independent source of liability. The parties to a joint enterprise may be principals (P) or secondary parties (accessories / accomplices) (D).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs the conduct element of the offence with the required fault element.

A secondary party is one who assists or encourages (sometimes referred to as “aids, abets, counsels or procures”) P to commit the substantive offence, without being a principal offender. However, a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender: s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

A joint enterprise may or may not be pre-planned. Sometimes a jointly committed crime occurs spontaneously. The applicable law is the same in either case: R v Mendez and Thompson.

From –

My thoughts

The idea of prosecution if you were involved with some sort of criminal activity has been around for decades, although recently it has become a doctrine of practice. Meaning if you helped,encouraged, aided, or abetted any criminal activity or criminal you could receive a lengthy time away. The use of this doctrine in 1994 could’ve been very helpful in the attempt to capture the main colporate. I don’t know the complete ins and outs of the case but the accomplices only received 8 years. Perhaps with this new doctrine the may have received a longer sentence for not revealing the killer. This may of also prompted the men to reveal the name of the killer.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s