*/
Judges upheld guilty verdicts against 13 men in the first test appeals brought under a new interpretation of the joint enterprise law.
The cases came before the Court of Appeal after the Supreme Court ruled in February that the controversial law had been interpreted incorrectly for more than 30 years.
The doctrine of joint enterprise had allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they had not inflicted the fatal blow, but if they could have foreseen the violent acts of others.
But in the landmark case of R v Jogee, the Supreme Court ruled that the test based on foresight alone was an insufficient basis on which to convict a defendant, giving hope to many young, predominantly black and ethnic minority, men who claimed they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal examined the facts of each of the individual cases, but found that none of the convictions was unsafe.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that given the jury’s finding of facts, the verdicts would have been no different. Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling, he said that correcting the law was ‘not to render invalid all convictions arrived at over many years by faithfully applying the law’.
The decisions were greeted by shouts of ‘No justice, no peace’ and ‘Shame on the court’ by campaigners and members of the defendants’ families in the court.
Judges upheld guilty verdicts against 13 men in the first test appeals brought under a new interpretation of the joint enterprise law.
The cases came before the Court of Appeal after the Supreme Court ruled in February that the controversial law had been interpreted incorrectly for more than 30 years.
The doctrine of joint enterprise had allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they had not inflicted the fatal blow, but if they could have foreseen the violent acts of others.
But in the landmark case of R v Jogee, the Supreme Court ruled that the test based on foresight alone was an insufficient basis on which to convict a defendant, giving hope to many young, predominantly black and ethnic minority, men who claimed they were victims of a miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal examined the facts of each of the individual cases, but found that none of the convictions was unsafe.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that given the jury’s finding of facts, the verdicts would have been no different. Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling, he said that correcting the law was ‘not to render invalid all convictions arrived at over many years by faithfully applying the law’.
The decisions were greeted by shouts of ‘No justice, no peace’ and ‘Shame on the court’ by campaigners and members of the defendants’ families in the court.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
The Chief Legal Officer to the Metropolitan Police, barrister Brett Welch, tells Anthony Inglese CB about his mission and the work to turn the Met around
Barrister apprenticeships – shortly to provide the fourth pathway to the Bar – are an ideal opportunity to support local talent and ‘grow your own’, say Tim Coulson and Dr Jane Dennehy
Born from a grievance, their research project grew into a book and is now challenging the status quo. Emma Price and Emma-Louise Fenelon reveal the key findings – and the critical next steps
Grok around and find out – or not? Mariya Peykova investigates the nudification scandal, what the law has to say about sexually explicit deepfakes, and whether stronger regulation is needed
Oliver Lewis spotlights an overlooked yet rapidly evolving area of law – coercive and controlling behaviour within care contexts
