It is now four years since the groundbreaking conjoined Supreme Court and Privy Council cases of Jogee and Ruddock. By overturning 24 years of established law and the previous decisions of the House of Lords and Privy Council, the case changed the way the criminal law deals with crimes that involve more than one defendant. This area of law had become exceptionally complicated, confusing students, practitioners, judges and juries alike. The re-statement of the law is far clearer and fairer. It reduces the risk of those only peripherally involved in serious crime being dragging into life sentences and provides a much better legal foundation for trying and convicting those accused of involvement in factually complicated offences. This book looks at how the law has been interpreted since the decision. It looks at how it affects those facing trial since the decision. It then looks at how those who have been convicted under an incorrect interpretation of the law can think about having their convictions overturned. The case has, disappointingly for many, not been the great news they and their families had hoped for. This book looks at how some cases have succeeded and others failed. It discusses how to approach an appeal to give it the greatest chances of success. As well as the practical perspective, this approach also helps illuminate how confused the courts' approach to the Jogee decision has been. It is an essential read for students, scholars and practitioners of criminal law. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jo Cecil is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers. She was Legal Aid Barrister of the Year in 2019. She represented one of the intervening parties, Just for Kids Law in the landmark Supreme Court and Privy Council case of R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen. James Mehigan is Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Canterbury and a barrister at Garden Court Chambers. He represented the Jamaican appellant in the landmark Supreme Court and Privy Council case of R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen.