How old is joint enterprise

Intellectually, this was difficult to justify and practically difficult to rationalise. Nine youths were tried when only one was the stabber.

The stabbing took place in a shop on a high street. One youth, J, was at the other end of a nearby park, approaching metres away from the murder when it happened. He was nonetheless convicted of murder based on the presence of his DNA on two knives found within the park. On the other hand, a boy three metres from the offence was convicted only of manslaughter. Whatever way one looks at the above facts, it is difficult to rationalise in either logic or common sense.

Especially so when dealing with adolescent boys. It is no wonder that there were anomalies, inconsistencies, and cases which had the bitter aftertaste of injustice. Jogee was therefore a long overdue, welcome and refreshing change of tack from the Supreme Court. Foresight is now relegated to evidence of the intention but not its equivalent. Post- Jogee authorities though have shown that the case has not had the impact that practitioners thought it would.

This case showed that, whilst there may have been a change of approach, this was not a complete judicial about-turn. In other words, forget any hope of succeeding on a submission of no case to answer. Although each case would be fact-dependent, the more likely outcome would be a conviction for a lesser offence such as manslaughter. One can readily envisage how, if tried under the new law, J above might well have escaped a conviction for murder but still been convicted of manslaughter. Superficially this sounds like an attractive, defence-friendly concept.

Surely simply being unaware of the weapon would mean more defendants would be found not guilty? Again though, this was not the going to be a get-out clause for defence teams. Mr Tas claimed he had no knowledge of the knife but had attended knowing that there would at the least be a fist fight. He had left the scene of the murder committed by his co-defendant prior to the fatal wound being delivered or a knife produced. The Court agreed with the trial judge that, as manslaughter involved unlawful killing without the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, knowledge of the knife was an issue of evidence going to intention, rather than being a legal matter which took his actions completely outwith the scope of the common purpose.

The fact that weapons were used and used to kill , would be treated no differently to a case where someone was kicked or punched to death. Jogee was and still is a significant change in the law. Certainly, not so much so that a raft of convictions would be overturned. As of , only one conviction has been overturned despite numerous attempts by numerous appellants.

Mr Jogee himself was retried at Nottingham Crown Court and was convicted of manslaughter as opposed to murder. The test for a successful appeal out of time has proved too onerous a hurdle other applicants thus far. Mr McCrilly was a burgler whose involvement in the burglary was limited to the search of a bedroom. When his co-burgler assaulted one of the elderly residents of the address he shouted at him to stop, helped when the victim had been punched and waited outside for ten minutes.

It is rare that many of us are blessed with clients who behave in such exemplary fashion in such difficult circumstances. It is also worth remembering that this was, at its heart a burglary, rather than an offence of violence. It is a case where the injustice is blatant and there for all to see. It is therefore easy to rationalise in light of the new law and difficult to see how in logic, reason or common sense, Mr McCrilly was to be regarded as a murderer.

A reading of the above may lead some to think that, despite being lauded as the new dawn, the practical effect of Jogee was minimal.

This particularly given the lack of successful appeals in an area which had received widespread professional, academic and popular criticism. If the only hope anyone ever had for a successful appeal was the case of McCrilly, then you may as well tear up your Grounds of Appeal now! What is clear though is that every case is fact dependent. This has been emphasized by the Court of Appeal across the authorities.

Mr McCrilly was, factually behaving in a manner well outside the range of actions normally encountered in people caught up in joint-enterprise violence. As Tas shows, only in the clearest of cases will an overwhelming supervening act be found to have overwritten any existing culpability that a defendant may have.

It is worth bearing in mind that group responsibility is still a divisive and controversial issue. The supreme court declared on Thursday that a key test imposed by judges in assessing guilt in joint enterprise cases — where the accused acts in conjunction with the killer but does not strike the blow that causes death — had been incorrectly applied.

It has caused devastation for families. The judgment on Thursday came in relation to two joint enterprise cases, one in Leicester the other in Jamaica, where men were convicted of murder. Both murder convictions have now been set aside. The British case involved Ameen Hassan Jogee, who is serving a life sentence. Jogee was convicted of murder even though it was his friend, Mohammed Adnam Hirsi, who killed their victim, Paul Fyfe, with a knife taken from the kitchen.

Jogee was outside the house when the killing took place. Jogee will remain in prison following the supreme court decision and his lawyers will have to make submissions about whether there should be a full retrial or whether his murder conviction should be replaced with one of manslaughter.

Changes to jury directions may result in fewer murder convictions involving gang fights, the supreme court acknowledged. It could also lead to the Crown Prosecution Service revising its policy on charging suspects. In a highly critical report last year, the Commons justice select committee suggested that many people convicted of murder under joint enterprise rules should have been charged with manslaughter or lesser crimes and that the threshold for establishing culpability should be raised.

The long-established principle of joint enterprise allows defendants to be found guilty of offences committed by another person if they have agreed to act together for a common purpose. Problems arise around what are said to be reasonably foreseeable consequences of any agreement.

Almost people are thought to have been convicted of murder between and as secondary parties in joint-enterprise cases. Many were recorded as gang-related attacks.

The court of appeal is now expecting those who believe they have been wrongly convicted under the old foresight rules to apply for their cases to be reviewed.

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. Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead said she was "absolutely delighted" her son was no longer convicted of murder, 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. Simon Natas, a lawyer who has worked with campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association, said the "historic" ruling would make the law "fairer for everybody". Lorraine Fraser, whose son Tyrone Clarke was killed by a gang in , said she thought the law should stay in place.

Four men were found guilty of Tyrone's murder by joint enterprise. In further remarks after publishing the judgement, Lord Neuberger said:. 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.

Two found guilty of man's murder. Is joint enterprise a 'lazy law'? Families' 'heartache' after murder ruling. Supreme Court ruling. This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. What does the joint enterprise ruling mean in practice?

Image source, Leicestershire Police.