Supreme Court rules controversial joint enterprise law has been 'wrongly interpreted'
A Supreme Court ruling could lead to a number of appeals by those convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise
Hardeep Matharu
@Hardeep_Matharu
4 minutes ago
21 comments
The controversial law on joint enterprise – which can result in people being convicted of murder even if they did not commit the killing – has been wrongly interpreted for the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Justices sitting in the UK's highest court said prosecutors, judges and jurors must take a different approach when dealing with defendants in such cases.
Under the doctrine of joint enterprise, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out.
In cases of murder, a gang member can be convicted of murder if he foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm.
The Supreme Court's judges said today that it was not right that someone could be convicted of murder if they merely foresaw that the person they were with might commit a crime.
Foresight was only evidence of the person's intention to encourage a crime, not as proof for a conviction of the crime committed, it said.
The ruling examined the use of the joint enterprise doctrine in a murder involving Mohammed Hirsi and Ameen Jogee
In a summary of its ruling, the Supreme Court said: “The mental element for secondary liability is intention to assist or encourage the crime.”
The judgment could lead to people convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise launching appeals.
Gloria Morrison, campaign coordinator for JENGbA (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association) - a grassroots campaign helping those convicted under joint enterprise - thanked the Supreme Court for today’s judgement, which she said was a “massive vindication of its work”.
She told The Independent: “Hundreds of people are in the prison system who shouldn’t be there because of this doctrine.
“It’s not a law, it’s a doctrine that’s applicable to the law and which is being applied to lots of different scenarios, not just murder.”
Miss Morrison said that the police and media had justified use of joint enterprise in recent years by presenting a “narrative” that it has been used to tackle gang culture.
But the campaigner said this was not true, and that many cases in which joint enterprise had been employed had not involved gangs at all.
“The police have tried to suggest that this is tackling gangs and gang crime,” she said.
“If it was a deterrent [in this area] then [gang violence] would have stopped but it hasn’t.
“That’s the narrative. The focus on gangs isn’t right.
“Anyone would want someone to be charged with what they have actually done – not by association.”
Today's judgement was handed down by the Supreme Court following an appeal byAmeen Jogee, who was convicted of murder under joint enterprise law in 2012 after his friend, Mohammed Hirsi, stabbed an ex-police officer in 2011.
Hirsi, who was also convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, stabbed to death Paul Fyfe inside his girlfriend’s house using a knife from the kitchen, while Jogee ‘egged’ on his friend to harm Mr Fyfe from the doorstep.
Jogee has appealed the decision on the ground that him foreseeing the mere possibility that Hirsi would inflict at least some bodily harm to Mr Fyfe should not have been enough to convict him of murder.
JENGbA celebrating outside the Supreme Court following today's ruling Camilla Horrox
The court said it will now explore whether there should be another murder trial held for Jogee or whether his murder conviction should be replaced by a conviction of manslaughter.
Speaking before the ruling, Mr Fyfe's widow said if Jogee's appeal was upheld it could mean killers will “literally be getting away with murder”.
Tracey Fyfe said she regarded Jogee as culpable for her husband's death because he knew what Hirsi was doing and was egging him on.
She said: “I think it is a very important law and it think it would be quite devastating for the victims' families like us, which would mean that criminals like Ameen Jogee would literally be getting away with murder.”
What is the doctrine of joint enterprise?
The common law doctrine of joint enterprise – also known as ‘guilt by association’ – has been developed over time by judges in various cases.
Under this principle, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime, a ‘secondary offender’, can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out – known as the ‘principal’.
While the Accessories and Abettors Act of 1861 states that “whosoever shall aid, abet or procure” a crime “shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender”, there is no modern legislation enacted by Parliament on the issue.
In recent years, joint enterprise has attracted controversy for its use as a means to convict members of a group or gang of murder, even though they had not been the ones to actually kill and did not intend for it to happen.
For a defendant to be convicted of murder in this situation, the prosecution only needs to show that the secondary offender foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm.
Campaigners have argued that joint enterprise results too readily in murder convictions for those playing a minor role in the criminality.
In 2014, the House of Commons’ Justice Committee recommended an urgent review of the threshold of foresight required for secondary offenders to be convicted of murder.
What does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean for those already convicted under joint enterprise?
The decision may lead to a number of defendants convicted under the law to appeal, contesting that the 'foresight' test used to determine their mental input into the crime that actually occurred was wrong.
In its summary of today's ruling, the Supreme Court said that those convicted under joint enterprise, whose cases do not meet the time limit required to appeal, would require “exceptional leave” from the Court of Appeal to challenge their convictions.
Gloria Morrison, of JENGbA, said the organisation will continue to help those convicted under the principle to appeal their convictions.
She said: “Our campaign has always been about getting people out of prison and that’s what we will keep working for.”
沒有留言:
張貼留言