This article is from the source 'independent' 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.independent.co.uk/news/uk/supreme-court-rules-controversial-joint-enterprise-law-has-been-wrongly-interpreted-a6880981.html
The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court rules controversial joint enterprise law has been 'wrongly interpreted' | Supreme Court rules controversial joint enterprise law has been 'wrongly interpreted' |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The controversial law on joint enterprise – which can result in people being convicted of murder even if they did not commit the killing – has been wrongly interpreted for the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled. | The controversial law on joint enterprise – which can result in people being convicted of murder even if they did not commit the killing – has been wrongly interpreted for the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled. |
| Justices sitting in the UK's highest court said prosecutors, judges and jurors must take a different approach when dealing with defendants in such cases. | Justices sitting in the UK's highest court said prosecutors, judges and jurors must take a different approach when dealing with defendants in such cases. |
| Under joint enterprise law, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out. | Under joint enterprise law, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out. |
| In cases of murder, a gang member can be convicted of murder if he foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm. | In cases of murder, a gang member can be convicted of murder if he foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm. |
| The Supreme Court's judges said today that it was not right that someone could be convicted of murder if they merely foresaw that the person they were with might commit a crime. | The Supreme Court's judges said today that it was not right that someone could be convicted of murder if they merely foresaw that the person they were with might commit a crime. |
| Foresight was only evidence of the person's intention to encourage a crime, not as proof for a conviction of the crime committed, it said. | Foresight was only evidence of the person's intention to encourage a crime, not as proof for a conviction of the crime committed, it said. |
| In a summary of its ruling, the Supreme Court said: "The mental element for secondary liability is intention to assist or encourage the crime." | In a summary of its ruling, the Supreme Court said: "The mental element for secondary liability is intention to assist or encourage the crime." |
| The judgment, delivered this morning, could lead to people convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise launching appeals. | The judgment, delivered this morning, could lead to people convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise launching appeals. |
| It was handed down by the Supreme Court following an appeal by Ameen Jogee, who was convicted of murder under joint enterprise law in 2012 after his friend, Mohammed Hirsi, stabbed an ex-police officer in 2011. | It was handed down by the Supreme Court following an appeal by Ameen Jogee, who was convicted of murder under joint enterprise law in 2012 after his friend, Mohammed Hirsi, stabbed an ex-police officer in 2011. |
| Hirsi, who was also convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, stabbed to death Paul Fyfe inside his girlfriend’s house using a knife from the kitchen, while Jogee ‘egged’ on his friend to harm Mr Fyfe from the doorstep. | Hirsi, who was also convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, stabbed to death Paul Fyfe inside his girlfriend’s house using a knife from the kitchen, while Jogee ‘egged’ on his friend to harm Mr Fyfe from the doorstep. |
| Jogee has appealed the decision on the ground that him foreseeing the mere possibility that Hirsi would inflict at least some bodily harm to Mr Fyfe should not have been enough to convict him of murder. | Jogee has appealed the decision on the ground that him foreseeing the mere possibility that Hirsi would inflict at least some bodily harm to Mr Fyfe should not have been enough to convict him of murder. |
| The court said it will now explore whether there should be another murder trial held for Jogee or whether his murder conviction should be repladced by a conviction of manslaughter. | The court said it will now explore whether there should be another murder trial held for Jogee or whether his murder conviction should be repladced by a conviction of manslaughter. |
| Speaking before the ruling, Mr Fyfe's widow said if Jogee's appeal was upheld it could mean killers will "literally be getting away with murder". | Speaking before the ruling, Mr Fyfe's widow said if Jogee's appeal was upheld it could mean killers will "literally be getting away with murder". |
| Tracey Fyfe said she regarded Jogee as culpable for her husband's death because he knew what Hirsi was doing and was egging him on. | Tracey Fyfe said she regarded Jogee as culpable for her husband's death because he knew what Hirsi was doing and was egging him on. |
| She said: "I think it is a very important law and it think it would be quite devastating for the victims' families like us, which would mean that criminals like Ameen Jogee would literally be getting away with murder." | She said: "I think it is a very important law and it think it would be quite devastating for the victims' families like us, which would mean that criminals like Ameen Jogee would literally be getting away with murder." |
| What is the law on joint enterprise? | What is the law on joint enterprise? |
| The common law doctrine of joint enterprise – also known as ‘guilt by association’ – has been developed over time by judges in various cases. | The common law doctrine of joint enterprise – also known as ‘guilt by association’ – has been developed over time by judges in various cases. |
| Under this law, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime, a ‘secondary offender’, can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out – known as the ‘principal’. | Under this law, a person who assists or encourages the committing of a crime, a ‘secondary offender’, can be held as legally responsible as the person who actually carries it out – known as the ‘principal’. |
| While the Accessories and Abettors Act of 1861 states that “whosoever shall aid, abet or procure” a crime “shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender”, there is no modern legislation enacted by Parliament on the issue. | While the Accessories and Abettors Act of 1861 states that “whosoever shall aid, abet or procure” a crime “shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender”, there is no modern legislation enacted by Parliament on the issue. |
| In recent years, joint enterprise has attracted controversy for its use as a means to convict gang members of murder, even though they have not been the ones to actually kill and had no intention for it to happen. | In recent years, joint enterprise has attracted controversy for its use as a means to convict gang members of murder, even though they have not been the ones to actually kill and had no intention for it to happen. |
| For a defendant to be convicted of murder in this situation, the prosecution only needs to show that the gang member foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm. | For a defendant to be convicted of murder in this situation, the prosecution only needs to show that the gang member foresaw that the person they were with would “possibly” kill or inflict serious harm. |
| Campaigners have argued that joint enterprise results too readily in murder convictions for those playing a minor role in the criminality. | Campaigners have argued that joint enterprise results too readily in murder convictions for those playing a minor role in the criminality. |
| “Joint enterprise is not about gangs, broken Britain and not about feral youth. It is a tool used by the police to and Crime Prosecution Service to imprison people to mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by others,” according to JENGba (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association), a grassroots campaign aiming to help those convicted under the law. | “Joint enterprise is not about gangs, broken Britain and not about feral youth. It is a tool used by the police to and Crime Prosecution Service to imprison people to mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by others,” according to JENGba (Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association), a grassroots campaign aiming to help those convicted under the law. |
| In 2014, the House of Commons’ Justice Committee recommended an urgent review of the threshold of foresight required for secondary offenders to be convicted of murder. | In 2014, the House of Commons’ Justice Committee recommended an urgent review of the threshold of foresight required for secondary offenders to be convicted of murder. |
| What does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean for those already convicted under joint enterprise? | What does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean for those already convicted under joint enterprise? |
| The decision may lead to a number of defendants convicted under the law to appeal, contesting that the test used to determine their mental input into the crime that actually occurred was wrong. | The decision may lead to a number of defendants convicted under the law to appeal, contesting that the test used to determine their mental input into the crime that actually occurred was wrong. |
| In its summary of today's ruling, the Supreme Court said that those convicted under joint enterprise, whose cases do not meet the time limit required to appeal, would require “exceptional leave” from the Court of Appeal to challenge their convictions. |