Category: joint enterprise

Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

Posted June 28th, 2013 in appeals, causation, ex turpi causa, joint enterprise, negligence, news, personal injuries, proportionality by tracey

“The press would have us believe that criminals can do what they like and then merrily sue all and sundry for the unfortunate consequences of those actions. Sadly for tabloid journalists this is simply not true as the Court of Appeal recently remind us in Joyce v O’Brien [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 202 (May). The case is a useful reminder of the rule often shortened to “ex turpi”, namely that the court will not allow a party to profit from a loss arising from that party’s own criminal or immoral activity.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 27th June 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Joint Pain – Right or Wrong? – Criminal Law and Justice Weekly

Posted June 10th, 2013 in joint enterprise, murder, news, violent disorder, young offenders by sally

“In a flurry of press reports, the trials of 20 young people charged in connection with a savage murder came to an end with unequivocally strong views on the parts of the families of both the convicted and the victim. This article looks briefly at the doctrine of joint enterprise in English criminal law, used to convict some, but it seems – surprisingly – not all of the defendants charged.
Soyfen Belamouadden was just 15 years old when on March 25, 2010 he was murdered in a vicious knife assault by a number of youths in the booking office in Victoria Station, London. Thirteen defendants were originally charged, with murder, with seven others charged with other offences. After a series of trials, 13 were convicted of various offences ranging from manslaughter to lesser offences such as violent disorder and three of the defendants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that they serve a minimum of 18 years.”

Full story

Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 8th June 2013

Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk

Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

Posted May 20th, 2013 in causation, ex turpi causa, joint enterprise, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Joyce v O’Brien and another [2013] EWCA Civ 546; [2013] WLR (D) 182

“Where the character of a joint criminal enterprise was such that it was foreseeable that a party or parties might be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialised, the harm could properly be said to have been caused by the criminal act of the party suffering it even if it resulted from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the criminal enterprise. Therefore, in such circumstances the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would provide the negligent party with a defence to a claim for negligence by the injured party.”

WLR Daily, 17th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The three women fighting to clear their loved ones’ names – The Guardian

Posted March 18th, 2013 in appeals, evidence, families, joint enterprise, miscarriage of justice, murder, news by sally

“What is it like if your brother or son is convicted of murder when you are convinced they are innocent? We meet three women who have fought for years to prove their loved ones’ innocence.”

Full story

The Guardian, 16th March 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

New guidelines could reduce wrongful convictions under ‘joint enterprise’ law – The Guardian

Posted March 6th, 2013 in gangs, joint enterprise, miscarriage of justice, news, sentencing, young persons by sally

“Long-awaited guidance for the crown prosecution service on a law used to fight gang violence could help prevent miscarriages of justice.”

Full story

The Guardian, 5th March 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Regina v Abbas and another – WLR Daily

Posted November 30th, 2012 in evidence, firearms, joint enterprise, juries, law reports by tracey

Regina v Abbas and another: [2012] EWCA Crim 2517;   [2012] WLR (D)  352

“Where the Crown alleged that the defendant was part of a joint enterprise involving the possession of an imitation firearm, proof of which depended upon the drawing of an inference, it was incumbent on a judge in summing up to identify the evidence of primary fact upon the basis of which, if it was accepted, a jury might infer knowledge and thus possession by the defendant as well as the principal.”

WLR Daily, 27th November 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Victoria station killing verdict and the perils of applying joint enterprise – The Guardian

Posted October 26th, 2012 in gangs, joint enterprise, murder, news, young offenders by tracey

“Joint enterprise adds to the risk that the wrong people end up with convictions for murder. Reform of this law is needed.”

Full story

The Guardian, 25th October 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Anti-gang efforts hampered by legal confusion, warn MPs – The Guardian

Posted January 18th, 2012 in gangs, joint enterprise, miscarriage of justice, news, violent offenders, witnesses by sally

“Efforts to tackle gang-related violence are being hampered by confusion over the complex law on joint enterprise, which could deter witnesses from coming forward, according to a report by the Commons justice select committee.”

Full story

The Guardian, 17th January 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Conviction re-instated over New Cross crossfire murder – BBC News

Posted December 14th, 2011 in evidence, joint enterprise, murder, news, sentencing by sally

“The Supreme Court has re-instated the murder conviction of a man who took part in a shoot-out, even though he did not fire the fatal shot.”

Full story

BBC News, 14th December 2011

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

R v Carpenter – WLR Daily

Posted November 16th, 2011 in appeals, homicide, joint enterprise, law reports, murder, offensive weapons by sally

R v Carpenter [2011] EWCA Crim 2568; [2011] WLR (D) 328

“In cases of joint enterprise where the use of a particular weapon was foreseen but the secondary party did not share or foresee the intention with which it was used, the availablity of manslaughter remained as a possible alternative verdict to murder.”

WLR Daily, 11th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Tesler v Government of the United States of America – WLR Daily

Posted January 26th, 2011 in extradition, joint enterprise, law reports by sally

Tesler v Government of the United States of America [2011] EWHC 52 (Admin); [2011] WLR (D) 14

“The requirement in s 137(2)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 for conduct to have occurred in a category 2 territory in order to constitute an extradition offence in relation to that territory was capable of being satisfied by acts performed entirely outside the territory where the perpetrator was participating in a joint enterprise with another person in the territory an object of which was to benefit that other person.”

WLR Daily, 25th January 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Joint enterprise law questioned by mother of teen convict – The Guardian

Posted August 4th, 2010 in joint enterprise, news, young offenders by sally

“Garry Newlove’s death at the hands of a group of teenagers shocked Britain. Three years on, two of the women closest to the case are fighting very different battles”

Full story

The Guardian, 4th August 2010

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Regina v Gnango – WLR Daily

Posted July 29th, 2010 in affray, appeals, joint enterprise, law reports, murder by sally

Regina v Gnango [2010] EWCA Crim 1691; [2010] WLR (D) 201

“Where a defendant voluntarily engaged in an exchange of gunfire with ‘B’ in a public place amounting to an affray, and in the course of that gunfire B shot and killed a passer-by and the defendant foresaw that in the course of that gunfire B might shoot with intent to kill or do really serious injury, if each party sought to shoot the other but not be shot himself, there was no common purpose and therefore no joint enterprise in the commission of the affray, and accordingly the defendant could not be guilty of the murder of the passer-by by transferred malice on the basis of joint enterprise.”

WLR Daily, 28th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v A and others – WLR Daily

Posted July 23rd, 2010 in accomplices, appeals, joint enterprise, jury directions, law reports, murder by sally

Regina v A and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1622; [2010] WLR (D) 194

“Where a murder was committed by a number of defendants acting together recent authority did not establish that the secondary party’s foresight of the principal’s intention was never relevant.”

WLR Daily, 19th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Joint enterprise law means even bystanders can get life – The Times

Posted July 9th, 2009 in joint enterprise, news by sally

“Even bystanders can find themselves convicted of murder under a legal doctrine known as ‘joint enterprise’. The centuries-old principle enables gang members to be prosecuted for a murder even when there is no evidence as to who inflicted the fatal blow.”

Full story

The Times, 9th July 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Joint enterprise – BBC News

Posted June 30th, 2009 in joint enterprise, murder, news by sally

“How do you solve a murder where a gang is involved, there is no evidence as to who inflicted the fatal blow, and no-one is talking?”

Full story

BBC News, 30th June 2009

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Regina (JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Times Law Reports

Posted May 11th, 2009 in asylum, crimes against humanity, criminal responsibility, joint enterprise, judicial review, law reports, war crimes by sally

Regina (JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Court of Appeal

“In order to establish that an asylum seeker was liable for a joint criminal enterprise such as to exclude him from the protection of the Geneva Convention as complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity, there had to have been a common design which amounted to or involved the commission of a crime provided for by statute.”

The Times, 11th May 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk