A House of Lords debate on 5 February saw cross-party peers call for reform to joint enterprise laws, with members challenging the government’s response and highlighting the long road ahead for change.
CCJS research was cited by several peers to illustrate the current and ongoing problems with joint enterprise prosecutions.
Citing the evidence
The debate was initiated by Lord Garnier through a proposed Amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. Speaking during the debate, Lord Ponsonby cited Dr Nisha Waller's findings, published by the Centre, that joint enterprise laws are "vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalisation, overpunishment, discriminatory outcomes and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and the defendant's physical contribution is minimal."
The Labour peer highlighted Dr Waller's research showing how flawed joint enterprise law encourages police and prosecutors to charge suspects based on poor-quality evidence and allows speculative prosecution case theory to override strong evidential foundations.
Lord Ponsonby emphasised Dr Waller's key recommendation that "the scope of secondary liability law must be narrowed in favour of a clearer and safer legal framework" calling on the government to act "as soon as practically possible."
The debate also surfaced the underlying issues left unresolved by legal changes in recent years, particularly the Supreme Court verdict on joint enterprise in 2016. Baroness Fox of Buckley cited the Centre’s data showing the 2016 verdict has had "no sustained impact" on the number of secondary suspects prosecuted for homicide.
"Justice for victims is ill-served by overcriminalisation or overpunishment of the wrong culprits," Baroness Fox argued, describing how the law breaks the link between action and accountability.
Contributions from our esteemed colleagues and collaborators were also noted, including Dr Patrick Williams and Becky Clarke, Professor Matt Dyson and legal experts Felicity Gerry KC and Keir Monteith KC.
Lord Garnier’s amendment proposed requiring proof that an accused person made a "significant contribution" to the crime—an approach based on research by Professor Matthew Dyson advocating for a more rigorous test of complicity. Lord Garnier argued that without this threshold, "there is a growing cohort of prisoners whose contribution to a crime has never meaningfully been measured."
Probing government
The amendment was introduced as a ‘probing amendment’, intending to surface an area of concern and provoke a government response. Responding for the government, Baroness Levitt indicated that while the government was listening, it was not persuaded of the amendment’s merits.
The Minister argued that defining a "significant contribution" would create unacceptable disparities in jury decisions - a position immediately challenged by Lord Marks, who noted that such judgements are "an everyday event" in jury trials.
If there is a better proposal, the government are not minded to make it yet. Baroness Levitt pointed to three ongoing reviews: the Law Commission's examination of homicide offences and sentencing (not due to report until 2028), the Law Commission's review of criminal appeals, and CPS consultation on ‘gang’ prosecutions.
What next?
With the Law Commission not expected to report until 2028, and the prospect of further delays before legislation, those concerned about joint enterprise laws face a long road ahead.
While Lord Garnier withdrew the amendment following the debate, the discussion marked an important moment in demonstrating how research, human stories of injustice, and legal expertise provide a strong foundation for advocacy and scrutiny of joint enterprise law.
The debate highlighted the need for continued attention and sustained pressure on an issue that the government appears reluctant to address.
Next month we are publishing our latest work, Joint Enterprise: A View Over Time. If you’re interested in joining the conversation or would like to be added to the Centre’s distribution list, please get in touch.
Read the debate here.
