This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, Supreme Court rules Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, Supreme Court rules
(35 minutes later)
The law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.The law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases if defendants "could" have foreseen violent acts by their associates.The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases if defendants "could" have foreseen violent acts by their associates.
However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test.However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test.
Their decision could pave the way for hundreds of prisoners to seek appeals.Their decision could pave the way for hundreds of prisoners to seek appeals.
It will apply in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and most UK overseas common law territories but not in Scotland, which has its own rules on joint enterprise.It will apply in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and most UK overseas common law territories but not in Scotland, which has its own rules on joint enterprise.
Campaigners against joint enterprise welcomed the ruling, saying it would mean a fairer law - but some murder victims' relatives said they were worried about possible appeals.Campaigners against joint enterprise welcomed the ruling, saying it would mean a fairer law - but some murder victims' relatives said they were worried about possible appeals.
What is the controversial 'joint enterprise' law?What is the controversial 'joint enterprise' law?
A moment of genuine legal historyA moment of genuine legal history
The ruling came after a panel of five Supreme Court judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who had been convicted under joint enterprise of the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.The ruling came after a panel of five Supreme Court judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who had been convicted under joint enterprise of the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.
The court heard that Jogee had "egged on" his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Both men received life sentences for murder.The court heard that Jogee had "egged on" his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Both men received life sentences for murder.
Jogee had argued he was not inside the house when the incident took place, and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do.Jogee had argued he was not inside the house when the incident took place, and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do.
Analysis Joint enterprise convictions
By BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman Joint enterprise law has been used to convict and hand down long sentences in several high-profile cases:
The centuries-old legal doctrine of joint enterprise was originally intended to stop people duelling by allowing the doctors and "seconds" to be prosecuted along with the duellists. In recent times, it has evolved into a very powerful means of prosecuting homicides involving groups or gangs of young men.
Its power lay in the test for prosecuting those who don't inflict the fatal blow and who play a lesser role. To be convicted of murder the prosecution simply had to prove that such a person could have foreseen the possibility that another person connected to them might either commit serious harm or kill.
Many felt that put the bar for the prosecution too low, leading to claims that those simply associated with the group, or present at the scene, have been convicted of murder and given a life sentence.
Today's ruling acknowledges the concern, saying that the foresight test has been misused for the past 30 years. So the Supreme Court has scrapped it.
Now the prosecution will have a tougher job. It will have to prove a lesser party intended to encourage or assist the person who physically kills the victim. That is likely to make prosecutors focus more keenly on the main players and charge them with murder, while those who play lesser roles could face lesser charges.
Delivering the judgement, Lord Neuberger said it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder.Delivering the judgement, Lord Neuberger said it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder.
"This court is always very cautious before departing from a previous decision of the House of Lords or the Supreme Court," he said. "The court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right," he said.
"But in this case the court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases, that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right." The judgement refers to a case in which three gang members armed with knives burst into the home of a prostitute and her husband, intending to collect a debt.
Jogee retrial? The husband was stabbed to death at the hand of at least one of the gang members. All three were convicted of murder.
BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling did not mean those convicted under joint enterprise would automatically be able to appeal. BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said Thursday's ruling did not mean those convicted under joint enterprise would automatically be able to appeal.
They would have to show that they have suffered "substantial injustice", he said.They would have to show that they have suffered "substantial injustice", he said.
In Jogee's case, the Supreme Court "set aside" his conviction - meaning the verdict in his original trial no longer stands.In Jogee's case, the Supreme Court "set aside" his conviction - meaning the verdict in his original trial no longer stands.
However, the ruling does not mean Jogee will walk free, as the court found he was unquestionably guilty of at least manslaughter, and there was evidence that he could have been guilty of murder, our correspondent said.However, the ruling does not mean Jogee will walk free, as the court found he was unquestionably guilty of at least manslaughter, and there was evidence that he could have been guilty of murder, our correspondent said.
The court has asked for written submissions on whether Jogee should be retried for murder, or whether the conviction for murder should be replaced by a conviction for manslaughter. Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead said she was "absolutely delighted" her son was no longer convicted of murder, and hoped he would soon be free.
Jogee's mother Rachel Whitehead said she was "absolutely delighted" her son was no longer convicted of a murder charge, and hoped he would soon be free.
She called joint enterprise "a lazy law", saying: "It should never have been invented. It's just been used to convict innocent people of crimes they didn't commit."She called joint enterprise "a lazy law", saying: "It should never have been invented. It's just been used to convict innocent people of crimes they didn't commit."
Joint enterprise convictions
Joint enterprise law has been used to convict and hand down long sentences in several high-profile cases:
Simon Natas, a lawyer who has worked with campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association, said the "historic" ruling would make the law "fairer for everybody".
'Pack of animals''Pack of animals'
Simon Natas, a lawyer who has worked with campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association, said the "historic" ruling would make the law "fairer for everybody".
Lorraine Fraser, whose son Tyrone Clarke was killed by a gang in 2004, said she thought the law should stay in place. Four men were found guilty of Tyrone's murder by joint enterprise.Lorraine Fraser, whose son Tyrone Clarke was killed by a gang in 2004, said she thought the law should stay in place. Four men were found guilty of Tyrone's murder by joint enterprise.
In a gang, "you're running with a pack", she said. "Something happens. You're standing there egging them on - my loved one lying on a floor. They were a pack of animals around him and they all pleaded not guilty in court. "They were a pack of animals around him and they all pleaded not guilty in court," she said, adding they should not be allowed to appeal.
"Well, I'm sorry but my son didn't kill himself. Three knives in his back, CS gas, beaten with every weapon going? So what are you saying? Those four, who were rightly convicted for my son, should be able to appeal? No. No, it's wrong."
In further remarks after publishing the judgement, Lord Neuberger said:In further remarks after publishing the judgement, Lord Neuberger said:
The Supreme Court was sitting in joint session with the Privy Council, which hears final appeals from UK overseas territories, in order to consider a joint enterprise case from Jamaica at the same time.The Supreme Court was sitting in joint session with the Privy Council, which hears final appeals from UK overseas territories, in order to consider a joint enterprise case from Jamaica at the same time.
This means the ruling will apply in most UK overseas common law territories.This means the ruling will apply in most UK overseas common law territories.