In R v Rahman [2008] UKHL 45, Lord Brown began his speech by stating – “There are many more murderers under our law than there are people who have killed intentionally. The actus reus of murder is, of course, the killing of the victim; the mens rea (established in R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566) is the intention either to kill the victim or at least to cause him some really serious bodily injury—grievous bodily harm as it used to be called, gbh for short. As this appeal illustrates, moreover, there is a further group of murderers too, those who did not intend even gbh but who foresaw that others might kill and yet nonetheless participated in the venture." Rahman is now the highest English authority on "joint enterprise" as applicable to murder. It establishes that where a principal offender committed an unlawful killing with the requisite intent for murder, a secondary party would be liable for murder on the basis of his foresight of what the principal might do and not on his foresight of the intention with which the principal might perform his act.
Criminal liability based on what is often referred to as “joint enterprise” is very problematic and was the subject of a Panorama programme in November 2009 – see “Joint enterprise: who is guilty.” Also see BBC - “We will come for you: gangs warned.”
In the recent case of Starfield Badza v R [2009] EWCA Crim 1363, Badza had been convicted of murder of Billy Ward on the basis of “joint enterprise.” Ward was knifed many times and the evidence pointed to a co-accused Lubango as being the actual knifeman. Nevertheless, Badza was involved. The Court of Appeal applied the House of Lords decision in Rahman and dismissed Badza’s appeal.
Few would have any problem with the dismissal of Badza’s appeal. However, one wonders just how many people are now in jail for murder as a result of them being on the periphery of some serious act of violence. Did they all truly have foresight of what the other(s) might do? The law needs to send out a strong message to those who involve themselves in violence or who have potentially violent acquaintances. Nevertheless, is this strong message working injustice? Is there a case for law reform?
yes i do think there is a case for law reform, to be given a life sentence, for a murder that you did not committ, is so wrong and unfair, the person who committed the murder should definatly be given the life sentence, but for those who either was or was not involved, should either get a shorter sentence, because some of these people have not got involved at all, so how can it be fair or justified that person, allso getting life, this law as it stands can not be justified as an honest outcome,
ReplyDeleteKujtim Spahiu is INNOCENT. He is serving 33 years for a murder HE DID NOT DO. The real murderer could not be found by the police when Kujtim was brought to trial. The victims and witness's all said he DID NOTHING, there was no evidence or forensic. Two others were charged with murder on joint enterprise with him but were found not guilty. One of them said Kujtim had a gun, he was the one visited unbeknown to anyone at the time by the police in his cell before he took the stand........ the other and everybody else said he did not have a gun. This is the most appalling abuse of the law and puts shame on the law in England.
ReplyDeleteThis innocent man must be freed.
Joint enterprise is a lazy law that needs to be abolished.
ReplyDeleteit puts innocent people to jail especially if the jury doesn’t like the look of you, my partner has just been found guilty for wounding with intent, after he tried to stop the incident from occurring, there was also an eye witness stating that he was the peace maker, now he is looking at a long time in jail for something that he was trying to stop, how is that planned? How is that joint enterprise? BUT HE GOT FOUND GUILTY!!!
The idea behind Joint Enterprise is 100% justifiable and should be in place. You go to commit a potentially violent act like robbing a store or whatever then you and only you are responsible for anything that reasonably happens in that circumstance. Trying to rob a liqueur store with a buddy holding a gun you should be charged with Murder when the buddy goes and shots somebody.
ReplyDeleteNow of course if someone was helping at the scene and not participating that is a miscarriage of justice, but that is not the law's fault it is the fault of the people involved in that trial.
So 20th July 13.34. You are in the shop and without warning your friend pulls out a gun/knife pointing to 'whoever', when it all goes wrong are you guilty?
ReplyDeleteThe case of Badza and Lubango of which I know very well, I think the court did the right thing to send both to prison and same. Badza played a part when he headlocked Billy.So he is more than guilty because they played this part together. I go to the same church with Lubango's family and I was in the same youth group with Lubango but he wouldn't want to listen to us when we told him to leave the street life. Honestly I have no pity for him, I only feel so sorry for his family because when look at him he was such a good child but he was hanging with the wrong crowd.Maybe he is going to come to his senses during these 18years.Don't get me wrong I am also black but I don't support murderers.
ReplyDelete"So 20th July 13.34. You are in the shop and without warning your friend pulls out a gun/knife pointing to 'whoever', when it all goes wrong are you guilty?"
ReplyDeleteRead the law on joint enterprise, specifically i'd direct you to the case of "Rahman".
I SAY THEY SHOULD ABOLISH JOINT ENTERPRISE LAW ASAP,HOW CAN INNOCENT PEOPLE GO TO PRISON,FORESEE WHO CAN FORESEE SOMEONE ACTIONS ,IT IS TOTALLY WRONG,
ReplyDeleteFree those in prison this is injustice,and the government wonders where all the money is going tax payers paying to lock up innocent people
ReplyDeleteJoint Enterprise Law makes one person accountable for the choices of another. How is that NOT a miscarriage of justice? Each man should stand and face trial for his own actions and be held responsible for their part in the commission of a crime.
ReplyDeleteanonymous
ReplyDeleteplease stop quoting "the law" this is'nt about law it is about justice, even if you and your mates get into a fight , and someone dies, does not mean you should get found guilty of murder, particularly if the principle who "actually" committed it, admits it, and says the other people involved in the fight didnt know he was going to commit murder , till a split second before he gave the fatal blow,btw the "law" also has affray, gbh, or even manslaughter law it ca use to deal with this sort of crime , but prosecutors use joint enterprise, as it minimises the need for proecutable evidence, all they need to do is prove you were involved in the fight , even if you didnt touch the person who was murdered.