Charges have been thrown out against two young men accused of stabbing to death Ahmed Ahmed (pictured) following the shock joint enterprise ruling
The first defendants in a murder trial have walked free following the shock ruling that joint enterprise law has been wrongly interpreted for 30 years.
Last month, the Supreme Court - Britain's highest court - ruled the law had been wrongly interpreted since 1984 over co-defendants in murder cases who did not strike the killer blow.
The court granted Ameen Jogee, 24, the right to appeal his conviction for murdering policeman Paul Fyfe, 47, alongside his friend Mohammed Hirsi in 2011.
The same day, Thursday February 18, defence lawyers at the Old Bailey applied for charges to be thrown out in the case of two young men accused of stabbing to death 24-year-old Ahmed Ahmed in Plumstead.
The bid by Khalid Hashi, 23, and Hamza Dodi, 24, was unopposed by the Crown Prosecution Service which took into account the Ameen Jogee ruling immediately after it was given.
The following day, Judge Paul Worsley ruled that the pair had no case to answer and they were formally acquitted in front of the jury on Monday February 22.
The fallout from the landmark Jogee ruling could not be reported until the conclusion of the Old Bailey trial of other co-defendants involved in the Plumstead murder.
Today, Osman Musa Mohamed, 20, was convicted of Mr Ahmed's murder. He has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 22 years.
Hussein Roble, 18, from the Woolwich area of south London, was cleared of the same charge.
The court had heard how Mr Ahmed was knifed repeatedly in the leg when he walked out of the block of flats where he lived in Plumstead on August 10 last year.
Last month, the Supreme Court - Britain's highest court - ruled the joint enterprise law had been wrongly interpreted since 1984 over co-defendants in murder cases who did not strike the killer blow
The court heard that the killers had lain in wait outside, having forced Mr Ahmed's friend Monzir Mohamed to go to the door.
The court heard how Mr Ahmed was seen by a witness to come downstairs and push the door release button as if he was going outside to speak to them.
But instead, the men rushed in and attacked him. Three of the mob wrestled him to the ground while another attacked him with a kitchen knife, while others swarmed around.
Dodi and Hashi were said to have been 'secondary parties' when Mr Ahmed, 24. was stabbed to death by a gang of young men as he tried to exit the block of flats where he lived with his mother and sister.
Mr Ahmed was found unconscious in the communal entrance of Turton House in Barnfield Road after he was repeatedly stabbed in his left thigh.
He was rushed to hospital, but had already suffered 'catastrophic blood loss' and was pronounced dead just after 8pm.
WHAT IS JOINT ENTERPRISE?
Joint enterprise law was used to convict David Norris and Gary Dobson of killing black teenager Stephen Lawrence.
In another well-known case three teenagers, Adam Swellings, Stephen Sorton and Jordan Cunliffe were jailed for life in January 2008 for the murder of Garry Newlove. Mr Newlove was attacked in front of his daughters in August 2007 after he confronted a group outside his house in Warrington, Cheshire.
The law allows for several people to be convicted of the same offence, even if they played different roles.
It can be used to prosecute all crimes but has recently been mainly used in murder cases.
The law means that a gang involved in a fatal attack, who could be standing by encouraging others, can be convicted of murder even if they do not land the fatal blow or kick.
Between 2005 and 2013 there were 4,590 prosecutions for murder with two or more defendants, according to a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
In the same period, 1,853 people were prosecuted for homicides when the charge involved four or more defendants
Prosecutors say the law is only used for people who participate in a crime while others have raised concerns about the danger of injustice.
Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse QC told jurors that the victim had 'absolutely no idea' what was about to happen to him. It was unclear whether the killer switched their target from another man to Mr Ahmed.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: 'The CPS carefully considered the recent Supreme Court judgment (R v Jogee, Ruddock v R) and its impact on this case.
'In light of this and the evidence given during the trial it was determined that there were no grounds to oppose submissions of no case to answer for these two defendants.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, lawyers predicted that thousands of prisoners would seek legal advice on appealing against their convictions.
However, the effects were felt straight away in live criminal cases going through the Crown Courts.
During an unrelated hearing at the Old Bailey, a defence lawyer indicated she was considering an application to dismiss the case against another murder accused in light of the Jogee ruling before it reached trial later this year.
Justices had said the interpretation of part of the law relating to joint enterprise - which can result in people being convicted of assault or murder even if they did not strike the blow - had taken a 'new turn' in the mid-1980s.
Senior judges 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
The Supreme Court said that development was wrong. Justices said it was not right that someone should be guilty merely because they foresaw that a co-accused might commit a crime.
They said jurors should view 'foresight' only as evidence to be taken into account, not as proof.
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét