Supreme Court: Joint enterprise 'wrongly interpreted'

The Supreme Court has ruled that the controversial law of joint enterprise has been misinterpreted for more than 30 years, after it allowed an appeal from a man convicted of murder.

The doctrine of joint enterprise allowed a defendant to be found guilty of another person's crime if the prosecution could show that the former foresaw the possibility of serious harm or death.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that foresight is not proof of a defendant’s intention, but instead one indication that the jury must weigh up among others when deciding guilt.

The ruling is expected to lead to a number of retrospective appeals, which the justices stressed would not be automatic and require exceptional leave from the Court of Appeal.

In 2012, Ameen Jogee was sentenced to life imprisonment at Leicester Crown Court after 'egging' on his friend, Mohammad Hirsi, to harm Paul Fyfe. Hirsi later stabbed and killed Fyfe.

After two failed appeals, Jogee's case came before the Supreme Court which considered what mental element was required for joint enterprise to succeed.

In reaching their decision, the panel of five justices concluded that the decisions in Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985 1 AC 168 and Regina v Powell and English [1999] 1 AC 1 had taken a wrong turning when it was held that foresight of a crime was required.

'This court is always very cautious before departing from a previous decision of the House of Lords or the Supreme Court,' said Lord Neuberger.

'But in this case the court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases, that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right.'

The president of the Supreme Court added: 'This does not mean that a person who took part in unlawful venture which any reasonable person would realise carried the risk of causing physical harm, and which in fact resulted in death, would go scot-free unless he could be proved to have intended to assist or encourage the principal offender to inflict death or serious harm.

'Anybody who took part in a venture of that kind would be guilty of manslaughter, a very serious crime, at least unless the death resulted from something which he could not possibly have foreseen.

'But to be guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter, the secondary party to the crime had to have had the intent which I have described.'

Sandra Paul, a senior associate and solicitor advocate at Kingsley Napley, said a review of joint enterprise has been long overdue.

'It has wrongly punished many who have simply been in the vicinity of crimes to the same extent as the critical actors,' she added.

'The ripples from today's decision will transform the fairness of future trials and potentially the whole lives of those who would otherwise have been caught in the joint enterprise trap. Guilt by association fails to provide justice for those accused or victims of crime.'

Francis FitzGibbon QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, led the legal team for Just for Kids Law, an intervener in the case.

'This decision marks a sea change in a highly controversial area of law,' he said. 'It corrects an historic mistake in the law of joint enterprise, which until now had exposed people to being found guilty of the most serious offences on the weakest legal basis.'

'This will have a huge impact on the young and vulnerable clients that Just for Kids Law represents, who can find themselves unwittingly drawn into dangerous situations, and will now get better protection from the law.'

Just for Kids Law director Shauneen Lambe said the rapid increase in children falling victim of the law had led to numerous miscarriages of justice involving vulnerable and learning-disabled children.

'We are currently preparing an appeal for a young boy who was convicted with four others of murder,' she said. 'Our client has learning difficulties and ADHD. CCTV footage played to the jury shows him exiting the building at the same time as another teenager brings in a knife.

'Despite this, he was convicted of murder under the principle of joint enterprise. He is now serving a life sentence for a killing which he was not present at and nor did he intend. There are many other cases like his.'