Crosswords0 min ago
Should The 'joint Enterprise' Law, Now Be Changed?
51 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes sandyRoe - //The gangs of 'savages', who feature in many a post here in AB, may now go unpunished for their violent crimes.
The knifemen, if caught, will feel the full weight of the law but his accomplices will get off with little more than a slap on the wrist. //
///And that is as it should be.
Being in a 'gang' - label unimportant - is not a crime. Stabbing someone with a knife is.
No-one should be jailed merely for being in the vicinity of a crime///
As I said earlier, this law was, probably, a useful 'tool' for the police. ie. to find out who wielded the knife in your example.
I suspect without the threat of 'joint enterprise' hanging over them, all the young scrotes will revert to 'no comment' interviews.
Svejk - //As I said earlier, this law was, probably, a useful 'tool' for the police. ie. to find out who wielded the knife in your example.
I suspect without the threat of 'joint enterprise' hanging over them, all the young scrotes will revert to 'no comment' interviews. //
Do I understand you to believe that the threat of unjust imprisonment as a means to extract information is a good thing?
I suggest that it is not.
I suspect without the threat of 'joint enterprise' hanging over them, all the young scrotes will revert to 'no comment' interviews. //
Do I understand you to believe that the threat of unjust imprisonment as a means to extract information is a good thing?
I suggest that it is not.
A little clarification.
Firstly, as has been stated, murder is not a statutory offence (i.e. there is no law or statute passed by and lodged in Parliament forbidding it). It is covered by “Common Law”.
Actually the “joint enterprise” interpretation to which m’Learned Friends refer in this ruling stems from a ruling by the High Court in Hong Kong in 1980. (Hong Kong was administered by the UK then and English law was applied). No need to go into detail but three men were accused of murdering the husband of a prostitute. They forced entry to their flat. One held on to the girl in the lounge whilst the other two attacked the husband in the kitchen. One assailant stabbed the man to death whilst the other shouted “knife him”. The judge directed the jury that all three were guilty of murder because the other two should have foreseen the possible outcome of their venture (they were all armed with knives and set out with the intention of killing the husband). The case has been used as a reference point in joint enterprise murder trials ever since.
It is the aspect of “foresight” which the Supreme Court ruled had been incorrectly used in the case they were dealing with. They ruled that it was not sufficient that those jointly accused simply had the foresight into what might happen. There must be evidence to support them actively assisting or encouraging the principle offender.
This does not open the door for successful appeals against all joint enterprise murder convictions. Only those where no assistance or encouragement was present and where the prosecution relied on the “foresight” aspect will be affected.
Firstly, as has been stated, murder is not a statutory offence (i.e. there is no law or statute passed by and lodged in Parliament forbidding it). It is covered by “Common Law”.
Actually the “joint enterprise” interpretation to which m’Learned Friends refer in this ruling stems from a ruling by the High Court in Hong Kong in 1980. (Hong Kong was administered by the UK then and English law was applied). No need to go into detail but three men were accused of murdering the husband of a prostitute. They forced entry to their flat. One held on to the girl in the lounge whilst the other two attacked the husband in the kitchen. One assailant stabbed the man to death whilst the other shouted “knife him”. The judge directed the jury that all three were guilty of murder because the other two should have foreseen the possible outcome of their venture (they were all armed with knives and set out with the intention of killing the husband). The case has been used as a reference point in joint enterprise murder trials ever since.
It is the aspect of “foresight” which the Supreme Court ruled had been incorrectly used in the case they were dealing with. They ruled that it was not sufficient that those jointly accused simply had the foresight into what might happen. There must be evidence to support them actively assisting or encouraging the principle offender.
This does not open the door for successful appeals against all joint enterprise murder convictions. Only those where no assistance or encouragement was present and where the prosecution relied on the “foresight” aspect will be affected.
Svejk - //Yes, andy, you understood right. Perhaps if someone close to you is murdered by scrotes, you'll see the other(right?) side of the argument.//
That point is often brought up when questions like this are debated - and quite often by yourself if memory serves.
If someone close to me is involved in a crime where this legislation comes into play, I may well change my view of it - but for now, as always, we are debating abstract concepts that do not involve any of us on a personal level, so with that level of detachment in mind, my view remains as stated.
That point is often brought up when questions like this are debated - and quite often by yourself if memory serves.
If someone close to me is involved in a crime where this legislation comes into play, I may well change my view of it - but for now, as always, we are debating abstract concepts that do not involve any of us on a personal level, so with that level of detachment in mind, my view remains as stated.
https:/
I have always thought of this as the 'classic' case of an innocent man being convicted of murder due to ' joint enterprise'. Bentley of course had been hanged many years before he was pardoned, such cases are the main reason I can never support the death penalty.
I have always thought of this as the 'classic' case of an innocent man being convicted of murder due to ' joint enterprise'. Bentley of course had been hanged many years before he was pardoned, such cases are the main reason I can never support the death penalty.
-- answer removed --
The killer in the case was too young to hang. Had he been of age he would have, and Bentley might well have been reprieved. However, a policeman had been killed and somebody had to swing. I can only recall one case where a police killer did not hang, and that was due to exceptional circumstances surrounding legal issues (DPP v Smith, 1960).
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.