Essay On Joint Enterprise Murder

"The law on Joint Enterprise is clear and unforgiving - you do not need to deal the fatal blow or even be at the actual scene of the killing to be found guilty and sent to jail". These were the words of John MacFarlane, Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police in July 2013 following the final conviction in relation to the murder of fifteen-year-old Sofyen Belamouadden at London's Victoria tube station, which remains the leading case involving English Joint Enterprise murder. The appalling killing is still heralded by many, including MacFarlane, as a prime example of how the complex doctrine of Joint Enterprise can be successfully used to prosecute crimes involving large groups of people. However, it is also a case that elucidates many
Although the judge presiding can use discretion to award more lenient sentences to those who are deemed to have contributed less to the murder, they are restricted to a certain extent by minimum tariffs that are dependent on the age of the convicted and entrenched by legislation. For example, the minimum term of sentencing that can be received for murder with a firearm, before release is considered, stands at thirty years. Similarly, in 2010 the minimum tariff for murder involving a knife was increased from fifteen to twenty-five years. As English law enforcement seems to be developing a more authoritarian way of thinking, having a law where there is no distinct differentiation between the primary offender and the accessory inevitably breeds injustice and is not reasonable. As a result "we have people serving life sentences for offences that they did not [commit], did not foresee and did not intend to happen" . But is this a bad thing? In 2011 Lord Judge summed up the ambiguous nature of establishing the primary causation of murder, questioning "Who is guilty of murder when four people surround somebody? The one who kicks? The one that suddenly produces the knife that is the offensive weapon that causes the death? The one who eggs on the man who has the knife? The one who says to him, 'For God's Sake!'...it is one thing to be a party to punching somebody, and
It remains a law that is constantly evolving through the setting of new case precedents. As a result, the range of principles that must be assessed by a judge and jury often makes cases complex and prone to inconsistency. The complexity of the law has prompted some professionals to liken the outcomes of cases to chance, as solicitor Greg Stewart claims that "[Joint Enterprise] covers such a wide range of elements of behaviour and intent that it becomes a lottery if you are convicted or not". In support of this, there is clear evidence that sometimes the logic of the doctrine can be hard for juries to follow. In 2011 Arfan Rafiq was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years for his role in a murder. Rafiq was alleged to have supplied another man with a machine gun that was then used to kill Nasar Hussain. Rafiq was trialed on two accounts under the doctrine: possession of a prohibited firearm and murder. The jury went on to find Rafiq guilty of murder, but acquitted him of the firearm charge. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the previous judgment on the basis that the jury’s decisions were 'irreconcilable' and unclear, also condemning the fact that "the appellant is in the position of not knowing on what basis he could have been convicted by the jury" . It is clear that when the justice system itself cannot be said to be fully confident in dispensing justice