Open Access Publisher and Free Library
05-Criminal justice.jpg

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE-CRIMINAL LAW-PROCDEDURE-SENTENCING-COURTS

Posts tagged joint enterprise law
In Their Own Words: First-hand Accounts of the Impact on the Families, Friends, and Communities of Those Imprisoned Under Joint Enterprise.

By Chris Tully

JENGbA facilitated a series of Listening Days with the families and friends of those impacted by Joint Enterprise (JE). Between October 2023 and May 2024 four such days took place in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. The days were attended by 41 family members and friends. Each listening day focussed on five themes; knowledge of JE and when they were first aware their loved ones were to be charged under joint enterprise, the impact on them and their communities following conviction, racism and the gang narrative, role of the media, developing support networks and the fightback against the injustice of joint enterprise. Families reported having little or no previous knowledge of JE and in a considerable number of cases only found out immediately prior to, or during the trial and in some cases not until the judges’ summing up. Inevitably the impact was profound. We heard of the toll on peoples’ physical and mental health, the damage done to family relationships, the breakdown of relationships with neighbours and members of their local communities, often based on stigma, a suspicion that there is ‘no smoke without fire’ and a general lack of awareness amongst the general public of how JE is applied. A lack of independent, accessible information, support and guidance at the point of charging was seen as a fundamental problem for families confronting a trial. Families expressed anger towards the role of the police, often seen as complicit with the Crown Prosecution Service, in using JE as a blunt instrument to “round up” and prosecute young people particularly on the basis of race, class, family name and by dint of neighbourhood. Participants in the conversations also had poor experiences with lawyers citing; a lack of experience, little or no expertise in JE cases, little empathy, a reluctance to share. information and documents. The experiences of trials were predicated on similar concerns. We heard families describe juries who appeared unaware of what guilty verdicts in JE cases meant for defendants, judges who were dismissive of evidence, and concerns that juries rarely reflected the diversity of the cities and towns where trials were taking place. A key concern was disproportionate use of JE in relation to black and racialised communities, working class communities and children and young people. Often underpinning this was the use of a gang narrative to justify charging and prosecution. Families were angered by the speed with which the gang narrative was introduced into proceedings and why this was applied when association was actually founded on living in the same neighbourhood, shared interests such as music and sport, school friendships etc. As such JE was seen as both “lazy” and susceptible to stereotyping and demonisation. Many we heard from had experienced unacceptable treatment at the hands of the media. Commonly this is presented as malign or inaccurate reporting, geared towards racism, blame often attributed to parents and especially mothers. Some felt the media and police worked hand in hand to perpetuate moral panics. Retractions of inaccurate reporting were hard to come by and we also heard how images of families’ children were used repeatedly by local press, sometimes years later, to highlight youth crime or gang violence. The most positive conversations revolved around the value of family relationships as a buffer against the isolation of having a loved one sentenced under JE. Additionally a community of interest has been forged by the work of JENGbA, without which many felt they would have collapsed under the weight of trying to support loved ones and sustain other relationships. JENGbA have provided support, information, understanding and access to a group of people who share campaigning zeal and a desire to put an end to the misuse of a legal doctrine that punishes many more people than ‘just’ those it imprisons.

London: Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association,

2024. 28p.

The Legal Dragnet: Joint Enterprise Law and its Implications

By Nisha Waller

The legal dragnet examines the law and prosecution practice concerning secondary liability, often referred to as 'joint enterprise'. Focusing on homicide cases, it highlights the risks posed by the current ambiguous law and makes a case for creating a safer framework for prosecution.

The report finds joint enterprise laws are vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalisation, over punishment, discriminatory outcomes, and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and a defendant’s physical contribution is minimal.

In particular, the current law:

  • was not ‘fixed’ by the Supreme Court in 2016.

  • does not have clear parameters on secondary parties’ conduct and contribution to an offence.

  • lacks clarity about what counts as assistance and encouragement (the latter in particular).

Under the current vague law, suspects are routinely charged and cases constructed with an absence of rigour, quality, and precision as to the role of each defendant. The law encourages:

  • the police and Crown Prosecution Service to charge suspects based on poor-quality evidence.

  • ‘storytelling’ and highly speculative prosecution case theory to take precedence over strong evidentiary foundations.

  • the use of gang narratives and vague concepts such as ‘in it together’ to construct collective intent. The risks of legal vagueness are particularly borne by young Black men and teenagers, who are most likely to be labelled and stereotyped as gang members.

Given the gravity and long-standing nature of concerns about the current law, the scope of secondary liability law needs to be narrowed in favour of a clearer and safer legal framework. Preventing wrongful convictions and their grave implications should take priority over the ease of prosecution.

The government must make good on their commitment to reform the laws of secondary liability as soon as is practically possible.

A minimum next step is for the government to request a Law Commission review. In addition to legal reform, urgent action is required regarding the various unjust processes that have flourished under the current vague law, highlighted in this report, particularly police and Crown Prosecution Service charging decisions, the overuse and misuse of gang evidence, and speculative and far-reaching prosecution case theory

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2024. 32p.