Joint enterprise: Convicted murderers to be let out within seconds

Don't believe everything you read, especially where the mainstream press is concerned, writes John van der Luit-Drummond

As Lord Neuberger was at pains to stress, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the doctrine of joint enterprisewill not ‘let off’ criminals. Nevertheless, dust had no time to settle on the court’s erudite decision before Fleet Street’s finest swooped into action with alarmingly predictable results.

'Thousands to seek legal advice' over joint criminal enterprise ruling,’ exclaimed the Daily Mail, ‘Stephen Lawrence killer could go free after shock legal U-turn,’ despaired The Sun, as rival the Daily Mirror ran a glossy front page featuring two mugshots of Lawrence’s killers under the despairing headline: ‘Getting away with murder’. And, just for good measure, the ‘intelligent tabloid’ even threw in an online story of how ‘Becky Watts' mum fears the ruling could see daughter's killer freed’.

Such misreporting dangerously subverts the public’s understanding of the law. Commenting on the attention the case had garnered, Felicity Gerry QC, who led Jogee's legal team, told SJ: ‘This decision does not change liability for shared intention or common purpose cases. It just returns liability for those only accused of assisting or encouraging to a safe foundation, rather than a confusing unjust mess that over-criminalised particularly young people and was overused by prosecutors.’

While the collective IQ and morality of the press is always up for debate, one would have hoped that, within the thousands of words written over the last 24 hours, at least one hack would have correctly recognised the facts and implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Still, we are talking about the tabloid press whose raison d'être is to sell papers through sensationalist scare-mongering and not accurate, objective journalism. Surely we can rely on more credible news outlets to report the facts correctly.

An editorial in The Independentcorrectly notes the ruling will benefit those handed unfairly harsh sentences, and will make little difference to those who have ‘received their just desserts’, while the Guardianpraised the court for removing ‘a stain from the rules of evidence’. The Telegraph – due to be renamed the Daily Mail-lite any day now – argues that joint enterprise serves a ‘legal and societal’ purpose, however, by dealing with Britain’s gang culture.

Though correctly acknowledging that the judgment does not allow ‘vast numbers of “innocent” inmates’ to be freed, the paper, which jumped on the fear bandwagon as quick as its red top counterparts has – like a petulant child finding its favourite toy taken away – delivered a back-handed swipe at the ruling.

‘If the doctrine has indeed been interpreted incorrectly then the Supreme Court enjoys the right to instruct lower courts to be more careful,’ it begrudgingly admits, before continuing: ‘The impetus for reform should come from MPs, and not a judiciary whose reputation rests on the avoidance of activism.’

In other words, the learned legal minds at the Tel disagree with the UK’s highest court and believe that – even if the justices are correct – it’s not for a bunch of unelected woolly liberal judges to circumvent parliament and change the law. Many legal practitioners have been quick to highlight and correct glaring press inaccuracies and they would be wise to continue doing so, lest the truth of this ruling be forever lost in the cesspit of tabloid hackery.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD