UKC

It seems the law on this has been misinterpreted for 30 years: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896

And lots of people may have been wrongly* convicted.

Whilst I'm not entirely comfortable with the law in terms of how it has been used (e.g. the example in the bbc report - one bloke was in the house, so clearly the bloke in the car didn't do the killing), I'm concerned that this will lead to a reduction in the number of crimes leading to a conviction especially where gang behaviour is concerned.

The question is how do you deal with these kind of "combination of offenders" leading to a death for example.

Imagine if you will a bloke gets set upon by a gang of 6 youths, punched and kicked by all of them, and when they leave its obvious one of them has stabbed the victim who has bled to death.
However the police/cps are unable to determine which of the youths stabbed him (but could prove all 6 youths were there and participated in the beating) in this case surely a murder conviction should be made, but who do you charge with Murder and who's just an accessory?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

If you read whats changed then this is excellent news.

In reply to Indy:


Who for?

In reply to balmybaldwin:
In most murder cases, where this law has been most controversial, secondary parties will usually end up with a conviction for manslaughter, rather than necessarily murder, even with this change.

They won't therefore escape liability altogether but will avoid a murder conviction when all they had was foresight that person A might do x.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I agree and think this is a retrograde step. If you chose to mix with thugs then you should be responsible for the gang's actions. If you don't like it you have the option of not getting involved in the first place, walking away when things start to get nasty or intervening on behalf of the victim. But to just go along with the crowd is, in my eyes, tacit approval of their actions.

In reply to Trangia:

Derek Bentley hung under joint enterprise.
v1

In reply to Indy:

Yes he did, and he knew that Craig had a revolver, and had shouted "Let him have it!"

I remember there was little sympathy for him at the time even though he hadn't actually pulled the trigger.

In reply to Trangia:

Wasn't the ambiguity of "Let him have it" the issue, rather than joint enterprise?

In reply to MG:

In the original trial it was held that Bentley and Craig had planned the burglary together and between them they had a revolver, which was carried by Craig. The argument was that you only carry a loaded gun on a burglary if you intend to use it. If it was to intimidate, why load it? The original court held that they were jointly guilty of murder. Craig only escaped the gallows and went to prison because he was under 18. Bentley paid the price.

In reply to Trangia:

Yes but that bit wasn't contencious. See the trial section here (it's all interesting)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

In reply to MG:

It was a very ambiguous phrase (particularly given Bentley's mental capacity). 'Let him have it' as in give it (the gun) to him, as opposed to firing it...

In reply to Siward:


There was quite a lot of evidence not presented at the trial, including forensic evidence that did not support the prosecution case.

In reply to The New NickB:

You are right. The principle or Joint Enterprise wasn't wrong, it was other factors such as Bentley's mental state and forensic evidence , and yeas the ambiguity of the "let him have it" which was inconsistent so the conviction was wrong for those reasons, not on the principle of Joint Enterprise.

In reply to Trangia:


His mental state, the ambiguity of "let him have it" etc were all pretty critical to the joint enterprise conviction. To be honest though, there are probably better examples of miscarriages of justice due to joint enterprise.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Worth a read for a good explanation :

http://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/02/18/joint-enterprise-5-things-you-need...

In reply to off-duty:

Thank you very good blog. and reassuring. I can't help thinking there may be a fair bit of money spent hearing cases to extend the deadlines (both on the defense(aid) and the crown sides) tho

In reply to off-duty:

For people who were part of a group where their only crime was to be present at the time when somebody else unexpectedly killed another person, and they were still jailed for murder.

When Gary Newlove was killed, one of the lads who was present is partially sighted and would have had next to no indication of what was going to happen, and wouldn't have been even able to see enough to have taken part in beating him up, and he still went to jail due to joint enterprise.

In reply to Trangia:

There's a 'scale of thuggery' I would suggest, though. I've known people when I was a teenager and in my early 20's who had a tendency to get into fights, if I as somebody who has never liked getting into fights happened to have been present when they tangled with somebody and accidentally killed them, which should I (hypothetically speaking) be facing jail if something extremely unexpected like a death happens when out with a friend?

In reply to Timmd:

When Gary Newlove was killed, one of the lads who was present is partially sighted and would have had next to no indication of what was going to happen, and wouldn't have been even able to see enough to have taken part in beating him up, and he still went to jail due to joint enterprise.

Jordan Cunliffe was one of the three youths that kicked Gary Newlove to death. He might not have delivered the fatal kick, but to say that his partial sight somehow means he didn't know what he was doing is frankly ludicrous.

In reply to Timmd:

I've known people when I was a teenager and in my early 20's who had a tendency to get into fights, if I as somebody who has never liked getting into fights happened to have been present when they tangled with somebody and accidentally killed them, which should I (hypothetically speaking) be facing jail if something extremely unexpected like a death happens when out with a friend?

No.

In reply to Timmd:



Crikey. With a defence like that he was STILL convicted, beyond reasonable doubt, that he not only assisted and encouraged the assault, but also foresaw that death or SERIOUS injury would result.

See the blog post I've linked to. And maybe consider that the person who says "they didn't do nothing, honest" is possibly not providing a particularly objective viewpoint.

In reply to Timmd:


No. Read the link for a clear explanation.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think you could argue a case against it where it's a clear cut killing. Ie a gang of youths goes to kill a rival and one specific member of the gang has the gun and shoots him. It's easy to say ok, the guy with the gun committed murder the rest were just along for the ride and although condoned and supported the killers actions took no part in the actual killing.

But I think the law was useful in cases where say a gang all beat someone up who then dies of thier injuries. It's impossible to tell which was the fatal blow and which was just assault and I would hope in that situation they would all go down for murder equally.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


^^^ This.

Since the decision the news seems to be full of hatchet-faced harpies who think "my innocent child" is going to get out of jail, despite witnesses seeing them enthusiastically booting the victim in the head when they were on the ground.