| Joint enterprise on 10:06 - Sep 30 with 2145 views | WeWereZombies |
Your post has prompted me to find out if this applies in Scotland. And, of course, it doesn't. But, of course, there is something similar (within the same root as 'common purpose') and, of course, it has a quaint name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_part
So far, so good...but i wonder if removing this seemingly incriminatory element from the law would be advisable. If, instead, it were more keenly publicised would it deter, say, people on social media from making spurious claims that when acted upon inflame the various conspiracy theories abounding at present ? |  |
|  |
| Joint enterprise on 10:13 - Sep 30 with 2118 views | Pendejo |
It's one set of stats in complete isolation with zero context.
E.g. 93% were male. Do you then draw the conclusion that CPS are a bunch of man haters?
No? Why? Because you accept most murderers are men?
I'd like context for the racial stats.
I would suggest anything joint venture is likely to be gang related; this an assault that resulted in death in which there were two or more assailants.
Where were stars collected?
Inner city London, Birmingham and Manchester? The sad fact is gang "stuff" at lower street level tends to be in deprived areas, which tends to have a significant black demographic.
All I'm saying is other things aside from ethnicity needs examining.
Yesterday I tracked thru a load of DfT stats on Road Traffic Collisions, in amongst that were stats about deprived areas... Most RTC occur in deprived areas, but most deaths of over 70s occur in least deprived areas.
Other metrics were; cause, by vehicle type, gender, location, day of week, time of day
Multiple metrics, but this report focussed on the one that has the self hating wringing their hands saying we are so hateful.
No, the hateful are those that go out equipped with lethal weapons and those that accompany them knowing they're tooled up.
The issue is not the number of people in any group, but WHY? What's can be done to prevent it? |  |
| |
| Joint enterprise on 10:22 - Sep 30 with 2098 views | lowhouseblue |
well you need to think through the specific circumstances in which the law is used and what those circumstances correlate with - eg the age group, the location, the type of crime (gang related) etc. race is correlated with those other things. it reflects socio-economic inequality and geography etc. tragically, things like gang crime, knife crime, gun crime etc are not evenly distributed (as offenders or victims) over the population. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Joint enterprise on 10:31 - Sep 30 with 2062 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 10:13 - Sep 30 by Pendejo |
It's one set of stats in complete isolation with zero context.
E.g. 93% were male. Do you then draw the conclusion that CPS are a bunch of man haters?
No? Why? Because you accept most murderers are men?
I'd like context for the racial stats.
I would suggest anything joint venture is likely to be gang related; this an assault that resulted in death in which there were two or more assailants.
Where were stars collected?
Inner city London, Birmingham and Manchester? The sad fact is gang "stuff" at lower street level tends to be in deprived areas, which tends to have a significant black demographic.
All I'm saying is other things aside from ethnicity needs examining.
Yesterday I tracked thru a load of DfT stats on Road Traffic Collisions, in amongst that were stats about deprived areas... Most RTC occur in deprived areas, but most deaths of over 70s occur in least deprived areas.
Other metrics were; cause, by vehicle type, gender, location, day of week, time of day
Multiple metrics, but this report focussed on the one that has the self hating wringing their hands saying we are so hateful.
No, the hateful are those that go out equipped with lethal weapons and those that accompany them knowing they're tooled up.
The issue is not the number of people in any group, but WHY? What's can be done to prevent it? |
If you read the article, you will see that people of Asian background are also disproportionally affected.
The article also states where the stats were collected. This includes Mersey-Cheshire, North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, not areas where the black population is particularly significant compared to London and the West Midlands.
And as regards joint venture more generally, you do realise that Derek Bentley was hanged for this? [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 10:37]
|  | | |
| Joint enterprise on 10:51 - Sep 30 with 2002 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Joint enterprise on 10:31 - Sep 30 by DJR |
If you read the article, you will see that people of Asian background are also disproportionally affected.
The article also states where the stats were collected. This includes Mersey-Cheshire, North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, not areas where the black population is particularly significant compared to London and the West Midlands.
And as regards joint venture more generally, you do realise that Derek Bentley was hanged for this? [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 10:37]
|
I don't think that anything you say there reduces the strength of the points made above.
And, of course, you can't damn a law over one problem case re Bentley, anymore than you can throw out murder as a valid charge, because there have been miscarriages of justice in murder cases. |  | | |
| Joint enterprise on 10:55 - Sep 30 with 1984 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 10:51 - Sep 30 by redrickstuhaart |
I don't think that anything you say there reduces the strength of the points made above.
And, of course, you can't damn a law over one problem case re Bentley, anymore than you can throw out murder as a valid charge, because there have been miscarriages of justice in murder cases. |
You might care to read this, and see if you think joint enterprise is fair, and particularly for the black community.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wqqg/what-is-joint-enterprise-impact-black-bam [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 10:59]
| | | |
| Joint enterprise on 12:11 - Sep 30 with 1824 views | Pendejo |
First of all, thank you for your research effort, I am undertaking voluntary work in Elephant and Castle right now but promise to read it when I get time.
If it weights the decision making process purely on racial grounds rather than surrounding circumstances then shame on police / CPS.
I come back to CAUSE rather than effect, I'd assert even with areas you cite, whilst overwhelming demographic may be white, those in most deprived circumstances are likely to be black and Asian (also in London, Latino, a demographic going under the radar). In which case there may also be an element of safety in numbers where an ethic group is in a tiny minority surrounded by hostile white majority (or black or Asian or latino) so joint enterprise could arguably be a defensive manoeuvre.
Divide and conquer is very much evident in current tory ideology, is it not? Pit the working classes against each other (see also centuries worth of Northern Ireland). | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Joint enterprise on 12:16 - Sep 30 with 1813 views | Pendejo |
| Joint enterprise on 10:31 - Sep 30 by DJR |
If you read the article, you will see that people of Asian background are also disproportionally affected.
The article also states where the stats were collected. This includes Mersey-Cheshire, North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside, not areas where the black population is particularly significant compared to London and the West Midlands.
And as regards joint venture more generally, you do realise that Derek Bentley was hanged for this? [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 10:37]
|
Let him have it!
Those that push the miscarriage of justice angle interpret this as "give the gun to the policemen"
Conviction was surely based on the "beyond reasonable doubt" interpretation that it meant "kill the copper!"
I have no personal opinion on it. | |
| |
| Joint enterprise on 13:18 - Sep 30 with 1742 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 12:16 - Sep 30 by Pendejo |
Let him have it!
Those that push the miscarriage of justice angle interpret this as "give the gun to the policemen"
Conviction was surely based on the "beyond reasonable doubt" interpretation that it meant "kill the copper!"
I have no personal opinion on it. |
Leaving aside the racial element, it just seems wrong to me in principle that someone can be guilty of murder when they don't pull the trigger.
Charge them with something else, and maybe give a larger sentence to reflect their involvement but murder means life (or death in Bentley's case), and in the case of one of the examples in the article in my post, 11 defendants, one as young as 14, were found guilty of murder, when surely not all were equally responsible? [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 13:19]
| | | |
| Joint enterprise on 13:24 - Sep 30 with 1723 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 12:11 - Sep 30 by Pendejo |
First of all, thank you for your research effort, I am undertaking voluntary work in Elephant and Castle right now but promise to read it when I get time.
If it weights the decision making process purely on racial grounds rather than surrounding circumstances then shame on police / CPS.
I come back to CAUSE rather than effect, I'd assert even with areas you cite, whilst overwhelming demographic may be white, those in most deprived circumstances are likely to be black and Asian (also in London, Latino, a demographic going under the radar). In which case there may also be an element of safety in numbers where an ethic group is in a tiny minority surrounded by hostile white majority (or black or Asian or latino) so joint enterprise could arguably be a defensive manoeuvre.
Divide and conquer is very much evident in current tory ideology, is it not? Pit the working classes against each other (see also centuries worth of Northern Ireland). |
I know the Elephant and Castle fairly well, having played football for three years for a pub team in the Walworth Road pretty close by, as well as getting the No. 12 bus into work on numerous occasions [Post edited 30 Sep 2023 13:30]
| | | |
| Joint enterprise on 17:41 - Sep 30 with 1621 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 10:06 - Sep 30 by WeWereZombies |
Your post has prompted me to find out if this applies in Scotland. And, of course, it doesn't. But, of course, there is something similar (within the same root as 'common purpose') and, of course, it has a quaint name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_part
So far, so good...but i wonder if removing this seemingly incriminatory element from the law would be advisable. If, instead, it were more keenly publicised would it deter, say, people on social media from making spurious claims that when acted upon inflame the various conspiracy theories abounding at present ? |
That's a great name. | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 18:00 - Sep 30 with 1596 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Joint enterprise on 17:41 - Sep 30 by DJR |
That's a great name. |
Worth looking at what the law actually is.... Doesnt seem too far wrong to me.
"If two people set out to commit an offence, and in the course of doing so one committed a different offence, they would both be guilty if the second person foresaw the possibility that his accomplice might commit that different offence. Notwithstanding that he may not have assisted or intended that his accomplice commit that different offence.
This statement of principle that has been followed by the courts over the intervening years is now reversed.
The error came about partly because the courts have previously conflated foresight and authorisation. Whilst foresight may be evidence of an intent to assist in the commission of a crime, it is not conclusive of such an intent.
There is no reason why ordinary principles of secondary liability should not be used in all cases.
Ordinary principles of secondary liability include “conditional intent”, for example a member of the group who robs a bank may know that his accomplice has a gun and may intend that his accomplice shoot anyone who resists them (but only if someone resists) . He is still guilty of murder if his accomplice does meet with resistance and uses the gun to kill."
https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/law-joint-enterprise-put-right-supreme-c | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 18:05 - Sep 30 with 1587 views | matteoblue |
Joint enterprise is nothing new, and used to be the way the law worked before begun a process of many decades of softening to the pathetic limp system we have now. The high amount of 'racial' percentage is also nothing new, as minorities are always more likely to be involved in crime, due to culture differences and living in poorer areas. |  |
| We are Premier League, say we are Premier League! |
| |
| Joint enterprise on 18:29 - Sep 30 with 1554 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 18:00 - Sep 30 by redrickstuhaart |
Worth looking at what the law actually is.... Doesnt seem too far wrong to me.
"If two people set out to commit an offence, and in the course of doing so one committed a different offence, they would both be guilty if the second person foresaw the possibility that his accomplice might commit that different offence. Notwithstanding that he may not have assisted or intended that his accomplice commit that different offence.
This statement of principle that has been followed by the courts over the intervening years is now reversed.
The error came about partly because the courts have previously conflated foresight and authorisation. Whilst foresight may be evidence of an intent to assist in the commission of a crime, it is not conclusive of such an intent.
There is no reason why ordinary principles of secondary liability should not be used in all cases.
Ordinary principles of secondary liability include “conditional intent”, for example a member of the group who robs a bank may know that his accomplice has a gun and may intend that his accomplice shoot anyone who resists them (but only if someone resists) . He is still guilty of murder if his accomplice does meet with resistance and uses the gun to kill."
https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/law-joint-enterprise-put-right-supreme-c |
I do happen to be a lawyer, and this is from the article I linked to earlier.
"Committed groups of activists are working to end joint enterprise convictions. In a landmark 2016 ruling, R v Jogee, the Supreme Court ruled that joint enterprise had been misinterpreted for the past 30 years. The court specified that for this law to apply, defendants must have actively encouraged serious bodily harm. The “foresight” that prosecutors had argued made alleged gang members liable for murder was not enough evidence to construct a conviction.
The ruling appeared to be a massive win for JENGbA campaigners. “They accepted that foresight was and has been incorrect,” says JENGbA member Garnet Dore, whose son was charged for murder alongside five others. “So therefore, I expected that anybody who had been locked up based on foresight would have a review of their case.”
Sadly, this has not been the reality. Another JENGbA member, Gillian Hyatt, helped her sons appeal their joint enterprise convictions after the Jogee ruling, but discovered that the Supreme Court stipulates that cases cannot be reviewed unless the individual can prove that they have faced a “substantial” level of injustice. Fellow JENGbA member Andrea explains: “It’s a level that’s high beyond reachable. They said our appeal did not have substantial injustice, but I say, facing one night in prison under joint enterprise is a substantial injustice.”
Akinsanya is similarly pessimistic. “Despite the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors still present this narrative of foresight and gang involvement to the jury to bolster their case,” he explains. “Enforcing the requirement to prove substantial injustice is effectively how the Supreme Court got around the Jogee ruling, because they didn't want to open the floodgates of appeals.”
And this is from the 2017 Lammy Review.
Despite the High Court ruling, experts in the field remain
concerned about some of the legal practice on Joint
Enterprise. Many are not convinced that the line between
‘prohibitive’ and ‘prejudicial’ information is drawn
appropriately in the evidence put before juries when cases
reach trial. People must be tried on the basis of evidence
about their actions, not their associations - and the
evidence put before juries must reflect this. The CPS should
take the opportunity, while it reworks its guidance on Joint
Enterprise, to consider its approach to gang prosecutions
in general | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 18:31 - Sep 30 with 1544 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 18:05 - Sep 30 by matteoblue |
Joint enterprise is nothing new, and used to be the way the law worked before begun a process of many decades of softening to the pathetic limp system we have now. The high amount of 'racial' percentage is also nothing new, as minorities are always more likely to be involved in crime, due to culture differences and living in poorer areas. |
Gosh! | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 21:21 - Sep 30 with 1445 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 18:00 - Sep 30 by redrickstuhaart |
Worth looking at what the law actually is.... Doesnt seem too far wrong to me.
"If two people set out to commit an offence, and in the course of doing so one committed a different offence, they would both be guilty if the second person foresaw the possibility that his accomplice might commit that different offence. Notwithstanding that he may not have assisted or intended that his accomplice commit that different offence.
This statement of principle that has been followed by the courts over the intervening years is now reversed.
The error came about partly because the courts have previously conflated foresight and authorisation. Whilst foresight may be evidence of an intent to assist in the commission of a crime, it is not conclusive of such an intent.
There is no reason why ordinary principles of secondary liability should not be used in all cases.
Ordinary principles of secondary liability include “conditional intent”, for example a member of the group who robs a bank may know that his accomplice has a gun and may intend that his accomplice shoot anyone who resists them (but only if someone resists) . He is still guilty of murder if his accomplice does meet with resistance and uses the gun to kill."
https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/law-joint-enterprise-put-right-supreme-c |
Interestingly, the Youth Justice Legal Centre take on things a few years after the case is not so positive.
https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/little-has-changed-report-continued-use- | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 21:22 - Sep 30 with 1438 views | DJR |
Following on from main point I was making in the OP, this is an interesting admission by a Government minister.
| | | |
| Joint enterprise on 21:45 - Sep 30 with 1413 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Joint enterprise on 18:29 - Sep 30 by DJR |
I do happen to be a lawyer, and this is from the article I linked to earlier.
"Committed groups of activists are working to end joint enterprise convictions. In a landmark 2016 ruling, R v Jogee, the Supreme Court ruled that joint enterprise had been misinterpreted for the past 30 years. The court specified that for this law to apply, defendants must have actively encouraged serious bodily harm. The “foresight” that prosecutors had argued made alleged gang members liable for murder was not enough evidence to construct a conviction.
The ruling appeared to be a massive win for JENGbA campaigners. “They accepted that foresight was and has been incorrect,” says JENGbA member Garnet Dore, whose son was charged for murder alongside five others. “So therefore, I expected that anybody who had been locked up based on foresight would have a review of their case.”
Sadly, this has not been the reality. Another JENGbA member, Gillian Hyatt, helped her sons appeal their joint enterprise convictions after the Jogee ruling, but discovered that the Supreme Court stipulates that cases cannot be reviewed unless the individual can prove that they have faced a “substantial” level of injustice. Fellow JENGbA member Andrea explains: “It’s a level that’s high beyond reachable. They said our appeal did not have substantial injustice, but I say, facing one night in prison under joint enterprise is a substantial injustice.”
Akinsanya is similarly pessimistic. “Despite the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors still present this narrative of foresight and gang involvement to the jury to bolster their case,” he explains. “Enforcing the requirement to prove substantial injustice is effectively how the Supreme Court got around the Jogee ruling, because they didn't want to open the floodgates of appeals.”
And this is from the 2017 Lammy Review.
Despite the High Court ruling, experts in the field remain
concerned about some of the legal practice on Joint
Enterprise. Many are not convinced that the line between
‘prohibitive’ and ‘prejudicial’ information is drawn
appropriately in the evidence put before juries when cases
reach trial. People must be tried on the basis of evidence
about their actions, not their associations - and the
evidence put before juries must reflect this. The CPS should
take the opportunity, while it reworks its guidance on Joint
Enterprise, to consider its approach to gang prosecutions
in general |
Me too. And you will know to look at the actual law, not what people with agendas say about it. Its not just about associations.
Clearly its appropriate that if you join in a gang of robbers and know your mates have weapons, you are fixed with significant responsibility as part of that enterprise when your mate clobbers someone in the process. | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 21:46 - Sep 30 with 1410 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Joint enterprise on 21:22 - Sep 30 by DJR |
Following on from main point I was making in the OP, this is an interesting admission by a Government minister.
|
Regrettably most in government have absolutely no insight into legal matters and use the law as a political lever. | | | |
| Joint enterprise on 08:19 - Oct 1 with 1272 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 21:45 - Sep 30 by redrickstuhaart |
Me too. And you will know to look at the actual law, not what people with agendas say about it. Its not just about associations.
Clearly its appropriate that if you join in a gang of robbers and know your mates have weapons, you are fixed with significant responsibility as part of that enterprise when your mate clobbers someone in the process. |
We can obviously agree to disagree but the law is one thing, its application (and that of the whole criminal justice system) is another.
To take one example, someone I knew who was a lawyer in the Treasury and was black had been stopped in his car 20 or 30 times by the police. I (a fellow lawyer) had driven regularly throughout London at all times of the day and night for longer than he had, but had only been stopped once. [Post edited 1 Oct 2023 9:21]
| | | |
| Joint enterprise on 08:29 - Oct 1 with 1256 views | DJR |
| Joint enterprise on 21:46 - Sep 30 by redrickstuhaart |
Regrettably most in government have absolutely no insight into legal matters and use the law as a political lever. |
Speaking as a former government lawyer, that is not true of the Civil Service, but I agree that many politicians have little insight.
I remember many years ago drafting a provision that would have rectified a problem which had caused difficulty in practice for solicitors firms in an area of law I can't now remember.
However, pressure for space in the Bill meant the provision was dropped, which I thought was pretty dreadful.
There was, however, at one time much greater respect for the law and the rule of law, with people like Paddy Mayfield and more recently Dominic Grieve as law officers.
Such respect disappeared under Johnson and reached its nadir under Braverman, an Attorney General who wouldn't know what the rule of law was if it hit her in the face. [Post edited 1 Oct 2023 8:30]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
