Hundreds of convictions could be challenged after a Supreme Court ruling on crimes committed by people involved in "joint enterprises", campaigners have said.
A panel of Supreme Court justices concluded that the law on joint enterprise - which can result in people being convicted of assault or murder even if they did not strike the blow - had been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges over the past 30 years.
Justices said prosecutors, judges and jurors had to take a different approach when dealing with defendants accused of being involved in joint enterprise crimes.
Ameen Jogee and Mohammed Hirsi were jailed over the death of former policeman Paul Fyfe (Leicestershire Police/PA)
They said it was not right that someone should be guilty merely because they foresaw that a co-accused might commit a crime.
The panel said jurors should view "foresight" only as evidence to be taken into account, not as proof.
A group campaigning for a change in the law on joint enterprise said the ruling was a "major turning point" and said hundreds of people could be affected.
Five Supreme Court justices analysed the issue at a hearing in London in October when considering an appeal by a man who was convicted of murder after egging on a friend to stab a former policeman.
Ameen Jogee and Mohammed Hirsi, both in their 20s, were given life sentences at Nottingham Crown Court in March 2012 after being convicted of Paul Fyfe's murder.
Jurors heard that Hirsi stabbed Mr Fyfe at a house in Leicester in June 2011 while being egged on by Jogee.
A judge imposed a minimum 22-year term on Hirsi, who lived in Leicester, and a minimum of 20 years on Jogee, who was of no fixed address.
Jogee's minimum term was cut to 18 years by the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court has allowed Jogee's appeal against conviction but he will stay in prison while prosecutors decide whether he should be retried.
Campaign group Jengba (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) hailed the ruling.
"This is a major turning point in British justice," said Jengba campaigner Deborah Madden.
"The joint enterprise rule has been used to get mass convictions without evidence.
"It has caused devastation for families."
She added: "We know of 650 people who we think will be affected by the ruling - and we don't know everyone."
Jogee's solicitor, Sandeep Kaushal, said he also thought that around 600 cases could be affected.
He said Jogee could be retried for murder or sentenced on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
"We are glad our arguments on the law were accepted," added Mr Kaushal, a director of Defence Law, which is based in Leicester.
"It is vital that errors created by joint enterprise should be corrected."
Jogee's mother, Rachel Whitehead, who lives in Leicester, said: "I am so pleased that the law has finally changed. I am just looking forward to seeing him return."
She added: "I have great sympathy for Mr Fyfe's family. Of course I do. I always have. But justice should be done."
Janet Cunliffe, whose son Jordan received a life sentence for his role in the 2007 murder of Garry Newlove in Warrington, said the ruling meant the law "will not convict innocent people any more".
Mrs Cunliffe has campaigned to have the law changed since Jordan was ordered to serve at least 12 years for the fatal alcohol-fuelled attack on father-of-three Mr Newlove, 47.
The salesman, who had overcome stomach cancer, was kicked to death after confronting vandals outside his home in a brutal attack witnesses by his daughters.
Mrs Cunliffe said her son's blindness meant "he couldn't realistically be classed as encouraging the crime" for which he was jailed, because he could not see it happening.
She told Sky: "What the judges have also said today is that if you do encourage it (murder) then you are still guilty of joint enterprise, so joint enterprise hasn't got away today, it just means it will not convict innocent people any more.
"It has not gone away, it has just been tightened so that the right people go to prison."
She added: "What happened today has proved all the campaigners right. We have been saying the test is far too low and the judge said the test for the secondary party is less than it is for the perpetrator. So you have to prove intent and you have to have more of a burden of proof for the perpetrator but less for the secondary party, but the secondary party still has to do a life sentence
"That has been changed today and that is what we always wanted."
Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, had headed the panel which analysed the joint enterprise issue.
He outlined the thinking of justices in a summary of the ruling and explained that the law had taken a "new turn" in the mid-1980s.
Senior judges had decided in 1984 that a "secondary party" would be guilty of murder if he or she "foresaw" the possibility that the "principal" might act with intent to cause death or serious harm, said Lord Neuberger.
He said trial judges could not be criticised for following that lead when giving directions to jurors.
But he said Supreme Court justices had decided that the law had taken a "wrong" turn in 1984.
Lord Neuberger said treating "foresight" alone as enough to convict was wrong.
He said the correct approach was for "foresight" to be treated as evidence jurors could consider.
Justices wanted submissions from lawyers on how their ruling affected Jogee's case, he said.
They would consider whether Jogee should be re-tried on a murder charge or re-sentenced for manslaughter.
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét