News1 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.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"If this ruling is upheld and implemented,..."
It will be upheld and implemented, Togo. The ruling was made by the Supreme Court and there is nowhere else for it to go. It does not provide carte blanche for gang members involved in joint enterprise. The ruling only applies in cases where the prosecution relies on the "foresight" principle as I explained in my earlier answer. If there is evidence of assistance or encouragement then the joint enterprise principle still applies.
It will be upheld and implemented, Togo. The ruling was made by the Supreme Court and there is nowhere else for it to go. It does not provide carte blanche for gang members involved in joint enterprise. The ruling only applies in cases where the prosecution relies on the "foresight" principle as I explained in my earlier answer. If there is evidence of assistance or encouragement then the joint enterprise principle still applies.
http://
Could it see the release of the two of the gang who stabbed Stephen Lawrence?
/// During the 2011-2012 trial of Dobson and David Norris, prosecutors argued it did not matter whether the pair had carried out the actual stabbing of Stephen. ///
/// Under joint enterprise, they were deemed to have been able to “foresee” one of their group would carry out a violent act. ///
Could it see the release of the two of the gang who stabbed Stephen Lawrence?
/// During the 2011-2012 trial of Dobson and David Norris, prosecutors argued it did not matter whether the pair had carried out the actual stabbing of Stephen. ///
/// Under joint enterprise, they were deemed to have been able to “foresee” one of their group would carry out a violent act. ///
I think it may depend, AOG, on the judge's directions to the jury. This latest ruling makes it clear that "foresight" of the likely consequences alone is not enough. There has to be complicity and/or encouragement and, most importantly, intention to kill or seriously injure. If the judge in the Stepehen Lawrence murder trial included these in his summing up then I doubt an appeal would succeed. Last week one of the papers listed some of those convicted who may see a successful appeal following this latest ruling and those who may not. Dobson and Norris were among the latter.
New Judge
I am a little confused, almost all of the media say that it could effect the Stephen Lawrences killer's convictions, even this from The guardian.
/// What is joint enterprise?
Joint enterprise cases involve crimes where more than one person takes part. The evidence rules enable those who did not strike the fatal blow or pull the trigger nonetheless to be convicted of murder.
Among well-known joint enterprise cases are the convictions obtained against the killers of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death in a racist attack in south London in 1993, and Ben Kinsella, a schoolboy knifed in north London in 2008. ///
http://
I am a little confused, almost all of the media say that it could effect the Stephen Lawrences killer's convictions, even this from The guardian.
/// What is joint enterprise?
Joint enterprise cases involve crimes where more than one person takes part. The evidence rules enable those who did not strike the fatal blow or pull the trigger nonetheless to be convicted of murder.
Among well-known joint enterprise cases are the convictions obtained against the killers of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death in a racist attack in south London in 1993, and Ben Kinsella, a schoolboy knifed in north London in 2008. ///
http://
It was the Daily Mail where I read the two lists, AOG. Dobson and Norris were said to be unlikely to benefit from the ruling. I quote:
“During sentencing Mr Justice Treacy acknowledged the evidence did not prove which member of the group had carried the knife, but told the pair: ‘You intended very serious injury’. This factor of intent means that any appeal would be highly unlikely to succeed.”
Of course, that was during sentencing. How he directed the jury during his summing up is not quoted but I would be surprised if their conviction was secured solely on the basis of their “foresight” when the matter of intent was mentioned during sentencing. There is also, of course, the added factor that the Mail may be exercising a little wishful thinking bearing in mind their high profile and lengthy campaign to have Mr Lawrence’s killers brought to justice.
The appeals that follow this ruling are going to be interesting. The latest ruling by no means opens the door for all joint enterprise murderers to appeal but there are bound to be some. Whether Dobson and Norris are among them we shall have to wait and see.
“During sentencing Mr Justice Treacy acknowledged the evidence did not prove which member of the group had carried the knife, but told the pair: ‘You intended very serious injury’. This factor of intent means that any appeal would be highly unlikely to succeed.”
Of course, that was during sentencing. How he directed the jury during his summing up is not quoted but I would be surprised if their conviction was secured solely on the basis of their “foresight” when the matter of intent was mentioned during sentencing. There is also, of course, the added factor that the Mail may be exercising a little wishful thinking bearing in mind their high profile and lengthy campaign to have Mr Lawrence’s killers brought to justice.
The appeals that follow this ruling are going to be interesting. The latest ruling by no means opens the door for all joint enterprise murderers to appeal but there are bound to be some. Whether Dobson and Norris are among them we shall have to wait and see.
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.