Comments on: Caught in the dragnet

By: Andrew Green

Andrew Green — Mon, 28 May 2012 09:34:49 +0000

In response to ‘Kadmar’: I’m sorry that what I wrote was too difficult for you. I’m not a legal academic, and I don’t lead INNOCENT, if that’s the organisation to which you refer. But I’m glad you agree with me on the ‘not innocent but not murderers’ or ‘bit less guilty’ point.

By: gratifymenow

gratifymenow — Sat, 26 May 2012 01:27:41 +0000

The only real deterrent to any crime is the probability of being caught. Only very disturbed people don’t care if they get caught after committing a serious offence. The Policeman’s comments are disingenuous – he knows the reality and how many children know what the situation with Joint Enterprise really is? Once they have committed the crime and been sentenced it is too late and as we have seen in many cases the government is so embarrassed by the way we are treating schoolchildren that these cases are not receiving the press they should – a bit like the Police receiving bribes and cosying up with the press – so how can these be considered as deterrents when nobody really knows what the situation is? All the Police and Judicial system is doing is to provide slave labour for private prisons for the next 10 to 15 years. Shame on them all and the rotten system that allows them to abuse young children in this obvious and cruel way for crimes they have not committed. Once upon a time it was acceptable to do this to people with a different coloured skin, now they are doing it to our own children!

By: JordanCunliffeInnocent

JordanCunliffeInnocent — Fri, 25 May 2012 19:28:03 +0000

It is time to stop talking so much about the problem with JE and time to start doing something about it. The DPP have promised guidelines but as yet they have not been produced. In the meantime more innocent people are at risk of being convicted of a serious crime they simply did not commit, had no knowledge of or even any foresight that it may occur. It is not productive to lock up large numbers of young people for 15 to 40 years minimum tarrif, knowing they have not murdered anyone. All this is done at great expense, not only finacially to the taxpayer, but emotionally to whole families and entire communities. Crispin Blunt may not want to tackle this issue in the near future, but the longer this is left the more devastating this will be to the integrity of our Justice system, the more devestating it will be to those in Government who acknowledged the problem but refused to address it.

By: KadMar

KadMar — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:44:21 +0000

Sorry Andrew Green I fell asleep half way through your comment – but isn’t “a bit less guilty” similar to “a bit pregnant”, and isn’t your own organisation led by a legal academic, i.e. you?

By: Andrew Green

Andrew Green — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:11:09 +0000

Yet again a commentator has failed to understand the problem with the joint enterprise doctrine is not so much its failure to differentiate between those who are completely guilty and those who are a bit less guilty, but the kind of evidence admitted by use of the doctrine and the inferences which prosecutors and judges invite juries to draw from it. All prosecutors have to prove is that defendants had foresight that someone else linked to them might commit a violent crime. Evidence of links frequently include presence at the scene or the exchange of phone calls at the time. While full participation in serious crimes can be inferred from such ‘evidence’ alone, both those who are responsible for only a lesser crime and, more importantly, those who are totally innocent, will continue to be convicted of the most serious of crimes. Organisations dominated by lawyers and legal academics like the Committee on the Reform of Joint Enterprise continue to mislead the public by assuming that all those charged are guilty of something, and ignoring the urgent and frightening problem of the frequent conviction of the innocent. Jon Robins however ought to be aware of the problem of evidence because he published my article on this subject on the Justice Gap website at http://thejusticegap.com/2012/01/tenuous-evidence-unjustified-inferences/

By: Justice4Jonathan

Justice4Jonathan — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:03:36 +0000

Excellent article. It is imperative that people understand that the joint enterprise law is being used against groups of ordinary people and that because of this almost anyone can become affected by it. The authorities who defend it’s use to tackle gangs have so far not produced any report of it’s effectiveness or any guidelines to ensure correct application of this legal doctrine.

By: rose

rose — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:18:10 +0000

hi – please note JENGbA’s website is actually http://www.jointenterprise.co and our blog is at http://jengba.blogspot.com

thanks :)