No 'avalanche' of releases after first successful 'joint enterprise' ruling

Two defendants in a murder trial have had their charges thrown out in the first case following the clarification of the controversial doctrine of joint enterprise.

The Supreme Court's admission in R v Jogee that the law was misinterpreted for over 30 years gave hope to those defendants who did not strike the fatal blow - convicted or awaiting conviction - looking to prove their innocence.

Khalid Hashi, 23, and Hamza Dodi, 24, have now benefited from the Supreme Court's ruling after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not oppose their submissions for no case to answer, regarding the murder of 24-year-old Ahmed Ahmed.

Ahmed was the victim of a pre-meditated attack last year when Hashi, Dodi, and other gang members rushed into his home. Of the other co-defendants, Osman Musa Mohamed, 20, was convicted of Mr Ahmed's murder while Hussein Roble, 18, walked free.

After the ruling, a spokesman for the prosecution service said: 'The CPS carefully considered the recent Supreme Court judgment and its impact on this case.

'In light of this and the evidence given during the trial it was determined that there were no grounds to oppose submissions of no case to answer for these two defendants.'

Fears that defendants will escape punishment and convicted murderers will be let out scot-free have been met with distain by the legal profession, including Lord Neuberger who delivered the judgment last month.

On the prospect of more people being released or escaping murder charges in the near future, Sandra Paul, criminal lawyer at Kingsley Napley LLP told SJ: 'I don't expect there to be an avalanche as such. It's what you would expect. If the law was wrong, the courts now have to apply it in the way that they are bound.'

Paul added that the CPS would consider the public interest to see whether there was an alternative to the charge the person received.

'Given their role as a public prosecutor you would expect the CPS to look at those [cases] again and say, yes we have to avoid 'double jeopardy' as it were but are there other things that we should have charged with, she said.

'It may be that the person spends no more time in custody but part of their job is making sure that where offences are committed that they are recorded and those people are held to account so I anticipate they will look at other options as well.'

In another ongoing case, the legal team of a killer convicted under the joint enterprise ruling is considering an appeal.