Joint Enterprise

[aikiwolfie]

I just watched Panorama. It covered the issue of an old law called "Joint Enterprise" which was initially used to collectively convict people guilty of duelling, but is now being used as a weapon against gangs.

The controversial issue with this law is that a by stander who witnesses a murder can be convicted of murder. Basically if the by stander new the actual murderer, is associating with the murder prior to the crime and/or is involved in any way then the by stander can also be found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

The current concern is the Police are stretching the powers of this law too far and abusing it in a bid to tackle gangs. Which may be leading to unfair convictions.

I was wondering how many people know anything about this law and it's implications. And also if you think it's fair or not?

[Topher]

Just watching the repeat now.

[Topher]

I think the law is somewhat fair, depending on the exact behaviour/actions of the other individuals. As the lawyers stated, they all play a role in the crime, by virtue of their participation in the incident, so regardless of who actually caused the death they are all in various ways guilty, the question is whether they are all guilty of exactly the same crime. Also, I think it is too simplistic/inaccurate to call them bystanders - this is not about people who just happened standing around, rather it is people who are involved in the death, the issue is the nature of their involvement.

I would say that the individual who is directly responsible for the death should receive the greater sentence however this does not mean the others are not responsible. Their sentence, I think, should depend on exactly what they done. Were they aware that some violent incident was about to take place and yet still took part? Were they aware of others having weapons? What encouragement did they provide prior to, and/or during the incident? Did they not attempt to stop the incident despite seeing how injured the victim was? What did they do after the death, e.g. did they try to cover up the incident and help the killer rather than turn them into the police?

I can see how it could be abused however. I find it difficult to see how 'bystanders' are automatically as guilty as the person who plunged in the knife. I would say the other people may still be guilty of a crime - assistance or compliance in murder, helping to cover up, etc. If you are watching someone receive a beating, even if you do not lay a finger on the victim, then I think you do become culpable to what happens to the victim, especially if you help the murder afterwards, whereas if you turn them over to the police then you become less culpable. But I do not think it is justifiable to automatically regard everyone involved to be guilty of murder.

I guess all participants could equally be sentenced to murder, even if only one individual directly caused the death, if all were indented to kill, or to cause serious harm, or they became aware that the victim was seriously injured but did not attempt to stop the attack and help the victim. In those circumstances I think all participants could be guilty of murder given that all played a direct role in the death - you could have stopped the incident and called the emergency services and failure to do this makes you directly culpable for the death of the victim.

[cloudz]

I would say that the individual who is directly responsible for the death should receive the greater sentence however this does not mean the others are not responsible. Their sentence, I think, should depend on exactly what they done.

Exactly.

But that is not what is happening now or how the law is being used. It is not fair to prosecute and sentance people as murderers when they havn't planned or commited any murder. Saying it is a somewhat fair law is absurd - it is not a fair law. The young man that was interviewed in prison and serving life. Should NOT have been prosecuted for murder. That is a miscaraige of justice if ever there was. That he was involvedin a violent confrontation and should have received a sentence there is no doubt - but murder ?

It's disgusting. If it can be proved that the person was involved in a true 'joint enterprise' to murder or commit a crime then that is another matter, and we have laws that cover various involvments in killing someone already and for other criminal acts. This is unecessary.

There's a gang problem and a violence problem, it's obvious that this is a draconion measure to 'clean things up'. In the process it puts a curb on civil liberties.

If I were with friends in a pub and something kicked off and someone got hurt - i could be just as guilty just for being with them - by the letter of this law, even if I didn't lay a finger on anyone. So am I expected to just stay at home and not go out with anyone ever. In case they do something stupid. Or something bad happens ?

The consequence of this being applied in a blanket way are preposturous.

[Topher]

Originally Posted by cloudz

Exactly.

But that is not what is happening now or how the law is being used. It is not fair to prosecute and sentance people as murderers when they havn't planned or commited any murder. Saying it is a somewhat fair law is absurd - it is not a fair law. The young man that was interviewed in prison and serving life. Should NOT have been prosecuted for murder. That is a miscaraige of justice if ever there was. That he was involvedin a violent confrontation and should have received a sentence there is no doubt - but murder ?

Well like I said I think there could be grounds for charging all involved with murder depending on the situation - even if only one person stuck in the knife. It depends on the circumstances and behaviours of the bystanders. Others can be just as guilty. The law is, in principle, fair and justified. It is how it is used which is the issue.

Originally Posted by cloudz

If I were with friends in a pub and something kicked off and someone got hurt - i could be just as guilty just for being with them - by the letter of this law, even if I didn't lay a finger on anyone. So am I expected to just stay at home and not go out with anyone ever. In case they do something stupid. Or something bad happens ?

It's precisely this type of of 'analysis' that misconstrueds the purpose of this law. It is not designed to just scoop up anyone and everyone within the vicinity of a crime. It's designed to deal with others who can be held culpable for a murder along with the principle killer. If you were involved with the original incident/planning, if you were aware of the murderer having a weapon, if you helped cover up the crime, if you stood there and watched someone be killed, etc, then you may be equally culpable of murder. There is nothing in of itself that is wrong with this, it just has to be applied with justification. I'm sure there are cases where the police have abused this law and used it to just scoop up everyone regardless of their particular involvement however that is not an argument against the entire law.

[aikiwolfie]

Personally I think there is a fine line here that is being crossed by the Police and the courts in some cases. It seems some people are being convicted because they simply knew something might happen, didn't stop it from happening and then found themselves in the are when the crime was committed. However did not actively participate and really were simply "by-standers". Which is unfair. The Police are never done telling people not to take the law into their own hands.

However what I do think is fair is when someone initially gets involved. Provides support to the main offender by preventing the victim from leaving or helping to drive the conflict to a head in another way. If an individual takes an active role in the crime then I think it's entirely fair they are punished as though they actually committed the crime.

"If I were with friends in a pub and something kicked off and someone got hurt - i could be just as guilty just for being with them - by the letter of this law, even if I didn't lay a finger on anyone. So am I expected to just stay at home and not go out with anyone ever. In case they do something stupid. Or something bad happens ?"

It's not just the fact that you were there. The police still have to prove you were there for the purpose of causing trouble. If the stories in the Panorama report are anything to go by. It seems simply associating with someone who would commit such a crime is all the evidence the Police needs at the moment. Which does pose a problem for martial arts practitioners.

As was mentioned in another thread. Some fairly nasty characters frequent some very popular martial arts. Say the club heads out to the pub for a night out. It might just be Christmas or something. One of these idiots takes a pop at someone and it ends very badly for the victim.

Now you just might have to prove your innocence because you associate with said idiot, train to hurt people then headed out for a night of alcohol consumption.

So the question now is, do you have any gang members in your local martial arts club? Do you head off for a pint after training? Are you now thinking twice?

[holyheadjch]

I think people are forgetting a crucial component of our justice system - you have to be proven guilty. That means the prosecution would have to prove you knew what was going to happen and that you did not take reasonable steps to prevent the incident from occurring - if both of those conditions are provably true, you deserve to be convicted. Otherwise you wont be convicted and you probably wont even be charged in the first place.

The justice system in this country has its quirks, but putting the wrong people in jail isn't a particularly common one - in fact, our biggest problem seems to be letting the wrong people go free.

If this helps to tackle gang crime (which I think it will), then it is hard to be against it.

[Topher]

Originally Posted by aikiwolfie

It seems some people are being convicted because they simply knew something might happen, didn't stop it from happening and then found themselves in the are when the crime was committed. However did not actively participate and really were simply "by-standers".

If they were involved, including foreknowledge of what was about to happen, then charging them is not unreasonable. In any case, like holyheadjch said, they have to be proven guilty.

Originally Posted by aikiwolfie

It seems simply associating with someone who would commit such a crime is all the evidence the Police needs at the moment.

Nonsense. Simply being an associate of someone who committed a crime wouldn't means you were culpable of the same crime. I see no evidence of this happening. It's has to be proven that you were either involved in the planning of the crime, and/or the incident itself.

[Topher]

The Wikipedia page for Joint Enterprise/Common Purpose has a lot of relevant information and examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose

Read the sections on deliberate departure and repentance:

Deliberate departure:

Where one of the participants deliberately departs from the common purpose by doing something that was not authorised or agreed upon, they alone are liable for the consequences. In the situation exemplified in Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378 a group comes together for a fight or to commit a crime and either they know or do not know that one of their team has a weapon. If they know that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct the one carrying to leave it behind, means that its use must be within the scope of their intention. But if they do not know of the weapon, this is a deliberate departure from the common purpose and this breaks the enterprise.

Repentance:

One person who has been an active member of the common purpose may escape liability by withdrawing before the other(s) go on to commit the crime. Mere repentance without any action, however, leaves the party liable. To be effective, the withdrawing party must actively seek to prevent the others from relying on what has been done. In R v Becerra (1975) 62 Crim. App. R. 212 it was held that any communication of withdrawal by the secondary party to the perpetrator must be such as to serve "unequivocal notice" upon the other party to the common purpose that, if he proceeds upon it, he does so without the further aid and assistance of the withdrawing party. According to Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law:

• If an accomplice only advised or encouraged the principal to commit the crime, he must at least communicate his withdrawal to the other parties.

• Where an accomplice has supplied the principal with the means of committing the crime, the accomplice must arguably neutralise, or at least take all reasonable steps to neutralise, the aid he has given.

• In more serious cases, it may be that the only effective withdrawal is either physical intervention or calling in the police.

In R v Rook (1997) Cr. App. R. 327 the court held that, as in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance. Rook was convicted as one of a gang of three men who met and agreed the details of a contract killing to kill the wife of a fourth man on the next day. Rook did not turn up next day and the killing was done by his two fellows. His defence was that he never intended the victim to be killed and believed that, if he failed to appear, the others would not go through with the plan. Lloyd LJ. described the evidence against him in this way:

So the position, on his own evidence, was that he took a leading part in the planning of the murder. He foresaw that the murder would, or at least might, take place. For a time he stalled the others. But he did nothing to stop them, and apart from his absence on the Thursday, he did nothing to indicate to them that he had changed his mind.

This did not amount to an unequivocal communication of his withdrawal from the scheme contemplated at the time he gave his assistance.

So people working with the direct perpetrator(s) are not necessarily required to have intent to murder in order to be charged with murder, rather they only have to have acknowledged that loss of life was a legitimate risk of their actions. And just walking away or standing by (or as in the example above, not even not turning up) does not necessarily remove culpability; if you actions aided the murder then you may be held as accountable as the perpetrator.

[aikiwolfie]

Originally Posted by Topher

Nonsense. Simply being an associate of someone who committed a crime wouldn't means you were culpable of the same crime. I see no evidence of this happening. It's has to be proven that you were either involved in the planning of the crime, and/or the incident itself.

One of the cases highlighted in the Panorama report was similar to this. The person convicted using the joint enterprise law was apparently almost blind. But the Police "claimed" he had associated with the person or group who actually committed the crime the previous week. And because he had been present when the crime was committed he was also convicted. Even though he hadn't actually participated in the attack.

Nice post though. Lots of good information there.

[holyheadjch]

Originally Posted by aikiwolfie

One of the cases highlighted in the Panorama report was similar to this. The person convicted using the joint enterprise law was apparently almost blind. But the Police "claimed" he had associated with the person or group who actually committed the crime the previous week. And because he had been present when the crime was committed he was also convicted. Even though he hadn't actually participated in the attack.

Nice post though. Lots of good information there.

I dont think that's necessarily wrong though (what, disabled people can't commit crimes?). If he knew the people who committed the crime, and was with them when the crime took place, in the knowledge that the crime would take place, then he is guilty. By being there, he was supporting those actions.

[aikiwolfie]

Didn't say he was with the gang at the time of the crime. He just happened to be around. At least that is scenario Panorama seemed to be presenting.

[holyheadjch]

I think it's unlikely that he just happened to be there. Although I'd need to know to know more facts about the case to say for sure. Clearly the judge/jury didn't believe his wrong place, wrong time defence.

[aikiwolfie]

Could be. But if all you need to convict someone of murder is the word of the Police and perhaps a few eye witnesses that said you were in the area that's a pretty slippery slope to be heading down.

[Topher]

Originally Posted by aikiwolfie

One of the cases highlighted in the Panorama report was similar to this. The person convicted using the joint enterprise law was apparently almost blind. But the Police "claimed" he had associated with the person or group who actually committed the crime the previous week. And because he had been present when the crime was committed he was also convicted. Even though he hadn't actually participated in the attack.

Nice post though. Lots of good information there.

Well of course I'm sure the police have misused the law and maybe this is an example of such misuse however the fact this person is almost blind does not preclude his involvement/guilt. I'm sure there is more to this story... maybe he was aware of what was about to happen; maybe he didn't just 'happen' to be in the area. I don't know, but what I do know is the police felt they had enough evidence to charge him and he was then found guilty in court. If it was such a clear miscarriage of justice then I'm sure his defence would have easily countered.