Reasonable Man

Joint Enterprise

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896

I have always been dubious about this one. If it doesn't meet conspiracy, aid and abet, counsel or procure or manslaughter it has gone a long way from mens rea.

Under the headline the judge said some good things.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

I may be wrong here but surely if someone `eggs on' another to stab (or otherwise assault) someone and death occurs as a result then a conviction for murder in the case of both accused would be justifiable. I certainly think that would be the case in Scots Law and can think of several cases where that has been held/

After all, if you `egg on' a dog to attack someone that is clearly an assault and if said canine attack ends in the death of the victim then a charge of murder would clearly be in order.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egging on is covered already, and in the case in point the court said he was unquestionably guilty of manslaughter.

There was a case where A drove B to a location to 'have it out' with a C. B stabbed C, killing him and A was convicted under joint enterprise even though he didn't get out of the car and there was no evidence that he even knew that A had a knife.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egging on is covered already, and in the case in point the court said he was unquestionably guilty of manslaughter.

There was a case where A drove B to a location to 'have it out' with a C. B stabbed C, killing him and A was convicted under joint enterprise even though he didn't get out of the car and there was no evidence that he even knew that A had a knife.

Sent from me using Witchcraft

It would help if you enlightened us with the actual case, place date, details etc.  A and B have often featured in various cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it in the case that went to court the defendant that appealed was egging the other on by shouting  something along the lines of. "Go on stab him, stab him" Repeated several times. So that was in my view a little more than being a friend of the actual murderer just watching what was going on.

 

Yes as the Judge said he was unquestionably guilty of manslaughter and possibly murder, but I am having difficulty in seeing how it could be murder by the appellant, considering the ruling that he had just made. At least the scrote will remain in custody for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's other legislation. After all Bentley was hanged on his, 'Let him have it.' Years before joint enterprise came in.

 

 

Don't think so.  Joint enterprise, or Common Criminal Purpose was brought in to English law in the mid 1800's.

 

Re Bentley, he was convicted under the  principle of common criminal purpose or joint enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's other legislation. After all Bentley was hanged on his, 'Let him have it.' Years before joint enterprise came in.

Sent from me using witchcraft

Please correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recollect Bentley went with Craig to commit a burglary and was aware that Craig was in possession of a knife. During the course of the burglary, Bentley was arrested and Craig produced a firearm and shot PC Miles dead. He also discharged the firearm at DS Fairfax and wounded him. 

While under arrest, Bentley was alleged to have shouted, ``Let him have it'' which could be interpreted as Bentley urging Craig to continue to shoot with the intention of resisting arrest or a plea from Bentley to Craig, imploring him to surrender the firearm. I seem to recollect  Bentley's defence either chose the latter interpretation or denied the phrase had ever been uttered by Bentley. It was also argued that as Bentley was in custody and the time this phrase was (allegedly) uttered he could not be guilty of murder but the trial judge disagree and the jury convicted Bentley.

However, I understand the English law of the time was that if individuals went to commit a crime and one or more of them was armed they were both guilty of murder if life was taken during the furtherance of the intended crime. I think was said to be the case, in the Bentley incident, even though the weapon used to kill was not the particular one that  Bentley was aware Craig had in his possession.  

Subject to my recollection of the evidence being accurate, I would contend that this was a just conviction under the law. I am a greater believer in the adage that ``If you fly with the crows you will be shot with the crows.''   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think so.  Joint enterprise, or Common Criminal Purpose was brought in to English law in the mid 1800's.

 

Re Bentley, he was convicted under the  principle of common criminal purpose or joint enterprise.

I find it difficult to comprehend that the law on such an important issue has be ``misinterpreted'' for so many decades without some learned judge or barrister noting the misinterpretation before now.

I could be wrong but this seems to be an attempt to bring about an alteration to proper existing law rather that the rectification of a mistake.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to comprehend that the law on such an important issue has be ``misinterpreted'' for so many decades without some learned judge or barrister noting the misinterpretation before now.

I could be wrong but this seems to be an attempt to bring about an alteration to proper existing law rather that the rectification of a mistake.

 

Oc

 

Your comment is certainly a very fair one; it is inconceivable to me that someone has raised the issues before bearing in mind the high-profile cases that have occurred. 

 

Whilst I appreciate that judges are masters of the law and it is that law that they interpret, should they not also have a responsibility to society to ensure that it survives peacefully?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to comprehend that the law on such an important issue has be ``misinterpreted'' for so many decades without some learned judge or barrister noting the misinterpretation before now.

I could be wrong but this seems to be an attempt to bring about an alteration to proper existing law rather that the rectification of a mistake.

It was reported on our local tv news last night.  I only caught a bit of it but apparently the supreme court have decided that now prosecutors must not just prove that the accused not only had foresight (ie an idea that it might happen) - but now they must prove that the accused also intended the deed to happen.

 

I found this explanation on the BBC news site -

 

Let's take the obvious example of gang criminality. A group goes out to rob teenagers of their iPhones. They have all agreed to that crime and to split the proceeds.

A victim resists and one of the assailants produces a knife and inflicts a fatal blow.

Are all of the gang guilty of that murder or just the member with blood on their hands?

 

For years, juries were told that to convict the other gang members, they simply had to be sure that they foresaw the possibility that the killing might occur.

If the other gang members did foresee such an eventuality, then it was "automatic authorisation" of the crime.

But critics of joint enterprise - and there are many - say this is "lazy law" because it leads to guilt and imprisonment without producing evidence of intent.

And the Supreme Court has largely agreed with that analysis.

 

The correct test for juries, say the justices, is that they must be sure that the other gang members definitely assisted or encouraged the attacker to do the deed.

A murder conviction cannot follow from just being physically present, they had to be 'mentally signed up' too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think so. Joint enterprise, or Common Criminal Purpose was brought in to English law in the mid 1800's.

Re Bentley, he was convicted under the principle of common criminal purpose or joint enterprise.

Of course, you are correct. I was writing like a lazy journalist. Murder is under common law and as such the various bits of case law shape how it is applied. It was the Case Stated in the mid 80s that gave the interpretation of 'joint enterprise' since then. This new case merely changes it again, that's just the organic nature of the law.

The Secret Barrister puts it all out in plain English and dispels all the myths and claims of 'bad law' and 'injustice'. http://thesecretbarrister.com

Sent from me using Witchcraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this ruling now a good reason to have different levels of murder? The intent was to kill so it cannot in all honesty be manslaughter, so going to the scene with another where a murder took place and did nothing to stop it should be punished as Murder. Perhaps a fixed term sentence of 20 years sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.