Time for action on joint enterprise injustice

Until the Supreme Court ruling, on 18 February 2016, there were three ways that multiple people could be prosecuted for a single offence, under so-called joint enterprise principles. First, if two people jointly committed a single crime, and, second, if one or more people actively assisted or encouraged someone else to commit a crime.

The third way, known as ‘parasitic accessory liability’, involved cases in which two or more people committed a crime, during which one of them committed another crime. Under parasitic accessory liability, the others could be prosecuted as secondary suspects, on the basis that they should have foreseen that the primary suspect would commit another crime. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that this third approach – parasitic accessory liability – had been wrongly applied, setting far too low a bar for individuals to be convicted of offences they did not perpetrate.

New research on trends in joint enterprise prosecutions by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, in partnership with the campaign group JENGbA and funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, is to be released in April this year. It suggests that there has been no discernible impact of the Supreme Court ruling on the number of prosecutions and convictions.

Speaking today, Helen Mills, Head of Programmes at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and one of the authors of the research, said:

The Supreme Court ruling could not have simply resolved the well-established injustices of joint enterprise. But we were surprised at how consistent the number of prosecutions and convictions secured through joint enterprise were throughout the fifteen-year period we looked at. Before and after the Supreme Court ruling, numbers of prosecutions through joint enterprise laws were remarkably similar, suggesting not much has changed.

The findings come at a time of renewed campaigning around the impact of Joint Enterprise on prisoners and their families. Those convicted prior to the 2016 Supreme Court ruling face enormous obstacles to challenging their convictions. This has led JENGbA to propose a change in the law, through a Private Member’s Bill, to make it easier for successful appeals to be mounted.

Speaking ahead of a planned vigil later today outside the Supreme Court, Gloria Morrison of JENGbA, said:

The Supreme Court victory in 2016 vindicated everything JENGbA had said for many years. This victory was bittersweet because we have found that those convicted under the wrong interpretation of the law now find themselves with the impossible hurdle of the Substantial Injustice Test.

Jan Cunliffe, of JENGbA, added:

JENGbA campaigners did originally take comfort from the fact that the daily trauma they continued to face, would never happen to another family. However, these findings come as no surprise to us. We receive calls from distressed family members on an almost weekly basis. Their confusion and disappointment in the criminal justice system is a harrowing reminder of the urgent need for Parliamentarians to step in and put right the draconian measures that are continuing to destroying the lives of so many.

Richard Garside, Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, said:

I remember the 2016 Supreme Court ruling well, and the hope among campaigners that it would be a real turning point. We need our research to be confirmed by future pieces of work, but it suggests that meaningful reform to the controversial joint enterprise rules is desperately needed.

Update, 18 February, 1.20 pm: Due to the extreme weather, JENGbA has unfortunately had to cancel today's planned vigil outside the Supreme Court.

Coming up 

• Gloria Morrison and Jan Cunliffe from JENGbA will be discussing the long struggle against joint enterprise prosecutions, with Helen Mills, on our March Lunch with... programme on 16 March 2022.