Any of the lawyers around here want to explain this:

The law on joint enterprise has been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges over the past 30 years, according to the Supreme Court.

What is it they’ve changed?

9 thoughts on “Hmm”

  1. IANAL, but as it’s been explained to me, the old interpretation was: if two of you broke into a house and you were in one room while your mate was in another room and your mate encountered the householder and battered him to death, you were guilty of murder by joint enterprise. The new interpretation is that you have to take part in the murder, not be just taking part in the events occuring when the murder takes place, eg saying I’ll hold him while you batter him.

    I think Derek “Let him have it” Bently would still be guilty.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    They have been moving away from these sort of constructive murder charges for at least 60 years. I am mildly surprised any sort of Common Purpose murder charge ever stuck these days.

    Of course the people who benefit, aside from murderers, are lawyers and judges. More crime means more work. Although it would have been much harder to stitch up the people charged with Stephen Lawrence’s murder if you actually had to show which one struck the fatal blow.

  3. SMFS,

    I think, even under the new interpretation, you’d only need to evidence people taking part in the beating, even to the extent of restraining him rather than hitting him, rather than needing to show which blow was the proximate cause of the death and who struck it (which strikes me, sorry, as medically difficult and evidentially very hard indeed?)

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    In other law and order new, the Scottish police, who could not be bothered investigating a car accident and so left a woman to die over three days, has finally found a crime worthy of immediate action:

    Following a report of a series of alleged offensive online posts relating to Syrian refugees living in Rothesay on Bute, Police Scotland confirmed on Tuesday that a 40-year-old man, understood to be from the Inverclyde area, had been arrested under the Communications Act…

    Following the arrest, Insp Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office said: “I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media.”

    I love that last sentence. I really do. Naturally the Guardian approves of this idiocy.

  5. 6000 probably fairly elderly natives of Bute just had 1000 Syrians dumped on them by the pricks of the SNP.

    Even assuming these are women and young kids and not the usual 18-30 yobbo sodomisers that is still an appalling act of arrogant tyranny.

    It seems Mr E U Pig-Fuck thinks he –and his SNP enablers–think they can get away with Merkal-style intimidation tactics over here.

  6. It changes the mental element required for conviction from foresight to intent (which in the case of murder is to cause serious harm or kill).

    The press reporting of this has been almost entirely inaccurate e.g. it will have no impact whatsoever on the Stephen Lawrence convictions.

  7. Suppose I go breaking and entering with a chum whom I know to be a violent thug. Suppose that in the course of one of our little forays he murders an innocent householder. Why am I not guilty of the murder too?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *