Joint enterprise?

[chrisd]

I watched the Jimmy McGovern programme on Sunday that was based on the law of Joint Enterprise and then an hour on the subject last night showing different true cases.

For anyone not familiar with this law, if you are out with others and, say, one in the group kills someone, whether or not you actively knew they were going to do it, whether you even knew they were carrying a weapon, whether you were in any way involved other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the chances are all of the people in the group could, and probably will, be jointly charged and convicted of murder.

Now this is a rehashed, very old doctrine, I believe introduced in an attempt to stop duelling. The police now use it, rightly in many cases to prosecute gangs who kill or injure and no one will own up to being the murderer, but the programmes centred upon lads who are convicted of murder when it is said that they had absolutely no idea that someone was carrying a weapon, let alone intended to use one and in some cases quite some distance from the scene of the crime, so it's almost guilt by association

Any views?

 

[richy]

I watched the Jimmy McGovern programme on Sunday that was based on the law of Joint Enterprise and then an hour on the subject last night showing different true cases.

For anyone not familiar with this law, if you are out with others and, say, one in the group kills someone, whether or not you actively knew they were going to do it, whether you even knew they were carrying a weapon, whether you were in any way involved other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the chances are all of the people in the group could, and probably will, be jointly charged and convicted of murder.

Now this is a rehashed, very old doctrine, I believe introduced in an attempt to stop duelling. The police now use it, rightly in many cases to prosecute gangs who kill or injure and no one will own up to being the murderer, but the programmes centred upon lads who are convicted of murder when it is said that they had absolutely no idea that someone was carrying a weapon, let alone intended to use one and in some cases quite some distance from the scene of the crime, so it's almost guilt by association

Any views?

I think in cases like the Stephen Lawrence murder its a good thing when neither will admit to it however both convicted were there but in the programme 'common', I couldn't help feeling sorry for the driver. After all he was totally unaware of what he was there for.

Obviously the mother and family of the murdered is where my heart really went out to.

 

[chrisd]

I think in cases like the Stephen Lawrence murder its a good thing when neither will admit to it however both convicted were there but in the programme 'common', I couldn't help feeling sorry for the driver. After all he was totally unaware of what he was there for.

Obviously the mother and family of the murdered is where my heart really went out to.

I agree 100%

 

[Crazyface]

Very powerful drama

 

[6inchcup]

this is possible the most odious law we have,it was well loved by the previous government were a surge in its use flourished,look at the case of the chap in Warrington,one lad convicted for being in the same area but over 100yds away,and had no involvement with the killing,there is a judicial review going on as we type,lets hope they come to the correct version,not charge everyone present with the crime because the police cant be bothered to find the one culprit as seems to be the case now.

 

[c1973]

Typical McGovern fare, powerful and hard hitting.

Obviously on a case by case basis you would have differing opinions, but generally I believe it to be a bad law. Although not designed to, I do believe it encourages or at least facilitates lazy police work. Why go the extra mile to get the actual culprit when you can get 4 people for the crime with less effort?

Is it fair that someone like the driver in the programme receives the same sentence as the culprit? Of course not. Also, I don't believe it gives complete justice to the victims family as part of the process is/should be discovery by the police then punishment by the court. This does not happen in joint enterprise cases.

The scales of justice can never be level if they are tipped in favour of prosecution which is what happens in joint enterprise cases. The scary thing about the case in the programme was that although they had been given the killers name they still went for the easy prosecution. When that actually happens it makes me ashamed of policing and justice in this country.

Jailing an innocent to ensure you jail the guilty should never happen in a mature, developed society.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It was powerful and disturbing. I recall it being used in a murder case where a gay guy was beaten up very badly - egged on by some in the group whilst others said nothing but video'd the beating on their phones. They all got done for murder.

 

[Blue in Munich]

It was powerful and disturbing. I recall it being used in a murder case where a gay guy was beaten up very badly - egged on by some in the group whilst others said nothing but video'd the beating on their phones. They all got done for murder.

And rightly so; if you stand by and watch someone get beaten to death and do nothing but video it on your phone you deserve everything you get as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And rightly so; if you stand by and watch someone get beaten to death and do nothing but video it on your phone you deserve everything you get as far as I'm concerned.

this^^^

but...in joint enterprise there is always a risk that someone completely innocent gets caught up in the group.