Should The 'joint Enterprise' Law, Now Be Changed?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3452576/Hundreds-convicted-criminals-including-murderers-appeal-sentences-High-Court-ruled-law-joint-enterprise-wrongly-interpreted-judges-30-years.html

[jackthehat]

Yesterdays decision seems to suggest that the law has been misinterpreted rather than the Statute itself being at fault.

Whether the Government will take the opportunity to tighten it up remains to be seen.

[Svejk]

Don't blame you for not finding it, aog, lol. Probably better discussing it here.

http://m.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Question1475459.html

^Some thoughts to be going on with.

[Svejk]

I meant discussing it on this thread, in case that^ reads wrong.

[andy-hughes]

Laws like this are seriously difficult to deal with.

This is a law that was introduced back in the days of duelling, when it was thought that duels would decrease in popularity, if seconds and doctors in attendance could be charged with murder, even though they were not directly responsible for a death.

Obviously each side has high emotions - the victims' families feel that the change is unjust, and will allow accomplices to be released, and the convicted prisoners' families will feel that denied justice is now available to their loved ones.

As I understand it, the appeal will have to show that the convicted accomplice was badly served by imposition of the law - it will not simply be a (literally!) Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Card for everyone convicted under its application.

So, when the furore has died down, we will have to see how the law is applied, and it will be to each case on its merits.

[EDDIE51]

If you read the reasons why 'Joint Enterprise' should be interpreted differently it does seem to make sense. Many people have been convicted of murder under joint enterprise when it is pretty clear they should not have been. This is just one story seen from the victims viewpoint.

[andy-hughes]

EDDIE51 - //Many people have been convicted of murder under joint enterprise when it is pretty clear they should not have been. This is just one story seen from the victims viewpoint. //

Indeed There is a world of difference between egging on someone to stab someone to death, and simply standing ten feet away while a casual acquaintance behaves completely out of character and murders someone before the acquaintance even realises what is going on.

To sentence both equally is clearly poor application of the law.

[Svejk]

Duelling? Without checking, I could have sworn this law was introduced/possibly revived under New Labour.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - //Duelling? Without checking, I could have sworn this law was introduced/possibly revived under New Labour. //

I am repeating the background to the law offered by Clive Coleman on Radio Four in PM yesterday.

[Gromit]

I feel 'OldGit Law' about to be implemented...

[mikey4444]

Jack is right here.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// I feel 'OldGit Law' about to be implemented.. ///

Once again total attempted confrontations are allowed to go on unchecked.

[mikey4444]

Gromit...can't see the point of your comment at 11:48 at all.

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //Gromit...can't see the point of your comment at 11:48 at all. //

It may be that Gromit was attempting to be light-hearted - always a tricky concept in print because the meaning can be misinterpreted.

But misinterpretation does not mean that malice was intended.

[mikey4444]

Irony and light-heartedness are notoriously difficult to suggest in print, here on AB.

A smiley face may have made Gromit's comments a little clearer perhaps ?

[andy-hughes]

mikey - //Irony and light-heartedness are notoriously difficult to suggest in print, here on AB.

A smiley face may have made Gromit's comments a little clearer perhaps ? //

Indeed - I usually add a 'LOL!' to make sure that I am not seen as offering offence - but even that is not guaranteed to work!!

[jno]

it's not a parliamentary law, as far as I know, it derives from common law, but judges have been misapplying it. Now that the supreme court has pointed this out, it shouldn't happen any more.

A useful summary from one lawyer:
“The effect of the supreme court’s decision is that a member of a group cannot be found guilty of an offence unless there is proof that he or she positively intended that it should be committed. Mere foresight of what someone else might do is not enough.”

[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.

[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

[jno]

sandyRoe, it seems likely that anyone with a knife may still be convicted as they could still be seen as having intended that a knifing take place. However, unarmed people may not, even if they were accompanying the knifemen. The courts will have to make up their mind according to the facts; but just "being there" will no longer be sufficient evidence.