BY BEN KERRIGAN
The change in the law on joint enterprise has understandably led to a lot of celebrations and relief at lastin many circles.
Previously, an individual was found guilty of even being present of an attack that led to murder even though they did not foresee death as a reasonable possibility.
The judgment on Thursday came in relation to two joint enterprise cases, one in Leicester the other in Jamaica, where men were convicted of murder. Both murder convictions have now been squashed, and the Supreme Court ruling will no doubt lead to a massive queue of appeals.
The British case involved a man by the name of Ameen Hassan Jogee- currently serving a life sentence for murder, despite the fact it was his friend, Mohammed Adnam Hirsi, who killed the victim- Paul Fyfe- with a knife he got from the kitchen. Ironically, Jogee was not even in the house when the killing took place, yet he was convicted for his role as an accomplice. Jogee will remain in prison following the supreme court decision and his lawyers will have to make submissions about whether there should be a full retrial or whether his murder conviction should be replaced with one of manslaughter.
INCORRECT APPLICATION
The supreme court judgment says that the law on joint enterprise has been incorrectly applied since 1984 in a judgment by the judicial committee of the privy council. The new decision, the supreme court says, brings “the mental element required of a secondary party back into line with that which is required of the principal and to bring the law back to the principles which had been established before the law took a wrong turn”. This makes plenty of sense since the law of murder is enshrined in the notion of intention, which is why it beggars belief that the law was wrongly applied for so long.
Establishing the new legal position on cases involving joint enterprise, the judge said ”the correct position is that … foresight of what the principal might do is evidence from which the jury may infer that he intended to assist or encourage to do so,” Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court said, “but it is for the jury to decide on the whole evidence of whether he had the necessary intent.”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The supreme court acknowledged that different consideratins had to be applied when assessing the required intention in cases related to outbreaks of violence involving gangs for example. An explicit or tacit agreement cannot be assumed by the jury under legal directions .
“In cases where there is a more or less spontaneous outbreak of multi handed violence, the evidence may be too nebulous for the jury to find that there was some form of agreement, express or tacit.”
CONTENTIOUS
The law on joint enterprise has always been highly contentious amongst academics and lay people alike; it has always lacked some degree of plausibility. Whilst it is understandable that the law would not want to allow present during an activity that led to death to get away free, it is only correct for punishment given to be proportionate to the offence. Where a party present during violence that led to death cannot be proven to have foreseen the death in question, manslaughter at best is the correct verdict. In fact, a party that did nothing to encourage such violence should not be blameworthy of any offense at all.
In light of the latest changes, the Crown Prosecution Service will revising its policy on charging suspects. A CPS spokesperson said: “We are carefully reviewing the judgment handed down today to determine its impact and our subsequent approach to such prosecutions.”
Hundreds of people have been convicted of murder between 2005 and 2013 as secondary parties in joint-enterprise cases. in mainly gang related attacks. The court of appeal must now expect those who believe they have been wrongly convicted under the old foresight rules to apply for their cases to be reviewed.
A statement from Jogee’s solicitor read: “The law had incorrectly and unfairly developed to convict secondary parties on the basis of mere ‘foresight or contemplation’ of what someone else might do.
This over-criminalised secondary parties, particularly young people like Ameen Jogee. The consequence was that people were convicted of serious offenses, committed by others, and imprisoned for lengthy periods.”
of what might happen would be evidence of an intention of the second person, but would not on its own be sufficient.” The change in this aspect of law is most welcome and well overdue.
