Joint Enterprise
The BBC carried an interesting report on the UK Supreme Court ruling that criminal the law on 'joint enterprise' has been wrongly interpreted for the past 30 years.
Now it's early days yet and the practical impact of this ruling has still to be seen although I have my doubts that justice is really being seen to be done because the law, as things stand, is quite capable of distinguishing between 'ringleaders' and 'active participants' as opposed to 'hangers on' who are at the periphery of such events.
The 'gang' involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence, for example, were all as guilty as each other, if you ask me, regardless of who actually wielded the knife.
So the $64,000 question is what evidence is there to put an accused person at the centre of things as opposed to playing the role of an otherwise innocent bystander?
I suppose things wouldn't be so bad if the law on manslaughter or culpable homicide was actually used to mete out harsh punishment where the evidence demands, but how often do hardened criminals get a stiff sentence under such charges?
Very seldom if you ask me and so it will be interesting to see how things pan out in the courts in the years ahead..
NB The judgment applies only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland because Scotland has its own (although not necessarily better) system governing criminal law.
Joint enterprise law 'wrongly interpreted' for 30 years, Supreme Court rules
The law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases if defendants "could" have foreseen violent acts by their associates.
However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test.
Their decision could pave the way for hundreds of prisoners to seek appeals.
It will apply in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and most UK overseas common law territories but not in Scotland, which has its own rules on joint enterprise.
What is the controversial 'joint enterprise' law?
Image copyright - Leicestershire Police Image caption - Ameen Jogee (L) and Mohammed Hirsi were both given life sentences under a joint enterprise conviction
The ruling came after a panel of five Supreme Court judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who had been convicted under joint enterprise of the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.
The court heard that Jogee had "egged on" his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Both men received life sentences for murder.
Jogee had argued he was not inside the house when the incident took place, and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do.
The ruling came after a panel of five Supreme Court judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who had been convicted under joint enterprise of the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.
The court heard that Jogee had "egged on" his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Both men received life sentences for murder.
Jogee had argued he was not inside the house when the incident took place, and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do.
Joint enterprise convictions
Image captionGary Dobson and David Norris were convicted under joint enterprise of the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence
Joint enterprise law has been used to convict and hand down long sentences in several high-profile cases:
Joint enterprise law has been used to convict and hand down long sentences in several high-profile cases:
- Stephen Lawrence: David Norris and Gary Dobson were convicted under joint enterprise in 2012 for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence. He was stabbed to death by a gang in a racially motivated murder in Eltham, south-east London, when he was 18
- Garry Newlove: Three teenagers - Adam Swellings, Stephen Sorton and Jordan Cunliffe - were jailed for life for the 2007 murder of Garry Newlove. He was attacked after he confronted a group outside his house in Warrington, Cheshire
- PC Neil Doyle: Football agent Andrew Taylor and sports event manager Timmy Donovan were jailed for beating to death off-duty policeman PC Neil Doyle on his Christmas work night out in Liverpool in 2014. Neither defendant admitted throwing the fatal punch
- Shakilus Townsend: Samantha Joseph was jailed for 10 years for the 2008 killing of Shakilus Townsend, 16, after acting as a "honey trap" to lure him to his death. Joseph led Shakilus to a quiet cul-de-sac in Thornton Heath, south London, where he was beaten with baseball bats and stabbed six times by her older boyfriend Danny McLean. They were both convicted of murder
- Zac Olumegbon: Five teenagers were given jail sentences totalling 76 years in 2011 over the killing of 15-year-old Zac Olumegbon. He was stabbed as he arrived at Park Campus School in West Norwood, south London, in 2010.
"This court is always very cautious before departing from a previous decision of the House of Lords or the Supreme Court," he said.
"But in this case the court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases, that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right."
Jogee retrial?
BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling did not mean those convicted under joint enterprise would automatically be able to appeal.
They would have to show that they have suffered "substantial injustice", he said.
In Jogee's case, the Supreme Court "set aside" his conviction - meaning the verdict in his original trial no longer stands.
However, the ruling does not mean Jogee will walk free, as the court found he was unquestionably guilty of at least manslaughter, and there was evidence that he could have been guilty of murder, our correspondent said.
Image caption - Ameen Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead argued joint enterprise was a 'lazy law' that had convicted innocent people
Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead said she was "absolutely delighted" her son was no longer convicted of a murder charge, and hoped he would soon be free.
She called joint enterprise "a lazy law", saying: "It should never have been invented. It's just been used to convict innocent people of crimes they didn't commit."
The court has asked for written submissions on whether Jogee should be retried for murder, or whether the conviction for murder should be replaced by a conviction for manslaughter.
In further remarks, Lord Neuberger said:
Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead said she was "absolutely delighted" her son was no longer convicted of a murder charge, and hoped he would soon be free.
She called joint enterprise "a lazy law", saying: "It should never have been invented. It's just been used to convict innocent people of crimes they didn't commit."
The court has asked for written submissions on whether Jogee should be retried for murder, or whether the conviction for murder should be replaced by a conviction for manslaughter.
In further remarks, Lord Neuberger said:
- The ruling did not automatically mean that all previous joint enterprise convictions were unsafe
- "A person who joins in a crime, which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death then results, is guilty at least of manslaughter", the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment
- The rule that "a person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of a crime is as guilty as the person who physically commits it" was not affected
- It remained open to a jury to decide whether a person intentionally encouraged or assisted a crime, for example through knowledge that weapons were being carried.
The Supreme Court was sitting in joint session with the Privy Council, which hears final appeals from UK overseas territories, in order to consider a joint enterprise case from Jamaica at the same time.
This means the ruling will apply in most UK overseas common law territories.
This means the ruling will apply in most UK overseas common law territories.
