Court rulings due on 'joint enterprise' murder convictions
Murder law misinterpreted for 30 years
(35 minutes later)
A man convicted of murder under the controversial joint enterprise law is set to hear the ruling of the Supreme Court later on his final appeal.
A law which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow has been wrongly interpreted for 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Ameen Jogee was given a life sentence after he encouraged a friend to stab a former police officer in 2011.
Joint enterprise law has been used to convict defendants if they "could" have foreseen that someone "might" intend to seriously harm or kill another person.
Joint enterprise has become an effective way to prosecute murder, especially in cases involving groups.
However, judges ruled it was wrong to treat "foresight" as a sufficient test.
But the ruling on Thursday could change the way gang and group crime is prosecuted.
The ruling could pave the way for hundreds of prisoners to seek appeals.
Under joint enterprise prosecutions, there is no need to prove a member of the group intended to kill. To be guilty of murder, the prosecution need only show that someone foresaw the person they were with "might" kill or inflict serious harm.
It came after a panel of five Supreme Court judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who was convicted under joint enterprise of the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.
Stabbed through the heart
The court heard that Jogee "egged on" his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart.
This has been controversial because many campaigners believe it too easily allows those who play a minor role to be prosecuted for murder.
Both men were given life sentences for murder.
The judgement from the UK's highest court will consider whether the foresight test is adequate, and could make it more difficult to prosecute for murder those who are present or involved but don't inflict the fatal blow.
Jogee was found guilty of murder along with Mohammed Hirsi in 2012 following the death of Paul Fyfe, a former Leicestershire police officer who was stabbed at his girlfriend's flat.
The court was told Hirsi stabbed Mr Fyfe, 47, through the heart while Jogee egged him on from the doorstep.
Paul Fyfe's widow Tracey said it would be devastating for victims' families if joint enterprise convictions were overturned.
"I think it's a very important law, and it would be quite devastating for victims' families like us which would mean that criminals like Ameen Jogee would literally be getting away with murder," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
She said that although Jogee had not struck the fatal blow, she believed he bore joint responsibility and had "intended to hurt someone that night".
Analysis
By Clive Coleman, BBC legal affairs correspondent
The ruling concerns the role played by so called "secondary parties" in murder. They are involved in some form of encouraging or assisting, but do not inflict the fatal blow and may not have taken part in any planning.
But if a jury finds they could have foreseen that another person connected to them might inflict serious harm or kill, they could still be convicted.
Many feel that sets the bar too low for the prosecution and makes it too easy to sweep up those who played a minor role.
An example might be young men out with their mates in a gang, one of whom is known to carry a knife. Trouble kicks off and a fight takes place lasting a few seconds. The armed gang member suddenly pulls a knife and fatally stabs the victim.
Are the youths on the periphery, shouting encouragement to their brawling mates, guilty of murder? In recent times joint enterprise has provided a powerful means of prosecuting such people.
Read more from Clive on the complex case of joint enterprise
Sandra Paul, from law firm Kingsley Napley, who has defended clients convicted under joint enterprise, told the BBC the current law was "too wide" and had "a very low threshold for culpability".
"Joint enterprise makes no distinction between the person who is intimately involved and the person who is perhaps on the periphery of what happened," she said.
"There is a separation between what you would expect that person to receive as punishment and what in fact they get. Nobody gets their just deserts."
Wrongful conviction claims
If the Supreme Court ruled in Jogee's favour, hundreds of people convicted under joint enterprise may have cause to review their cases, Ms Paul said.
Campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (Jengba), which wants to see the law reformed, supports more than 500 people who have been convicted of murder or manslaughter under joint enterprise.
The Supreme Court ruling will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland, which has its own rules on joint enterprise.
The Privy Council, which hears final appeals from UK overseas territories, is also considering a case, meaning the ruling will apply in most UK overseas common law territories.
