*/
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.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
