Labour is being urged to fulfil its pledge, made in opposition, to reform the law on joint enterprise in England and Wales, which is causing “systemic injustice”.
A report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) says that the law on joint enterprise – where two or more defendants are accused of the same crime in relation to the same incident – has led to overcriminalisation, over punishment, discriminatory outcomes and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent.
Joint enterprise has a wide scope, but has long raised concerns, particularly about murder and manslaughter convictions in which minor players on the periphery of a crime are tried and convicted as if they were the perpetrator.
Controversial cases include the conviction of three boys for the manslaughter of Kennie Carter after the Crown Prosecution Service argued that, through their presence at the scene, they intentionally assisted or encouraged the boy who admitted to stabbing Kennie.
The CCJS report, which will be published in September but has been shared exclusively with the Guardian, highlights a case from 2017, currently the subject of an appeal, which saw 11 Black and mixed-race teenagers each handed sentences of between five and 23 years for one murder in Manchester.
The report says the prosecution in that case evoked a gang narrative “underpinned by a rap music video, used as evidence of the defendants’ ‘membership’ or ‘allegiance’ to the ‘gang’”.
The report’s author, Nisha Waller, said: “Joint enterprise is unjustifiably vague and wide in scope. Law reform will not eradicate institutional racism and broader issues with police and prosecution practice. However, the current law encourages the overcharging of suspects and allows cases to be propelled forward based on poor-quality evidence. Prosecutors are then left to fill the gaps with speculative case theories and often racialised narratives from which juries are invited to infer joint responsibility.”
The report, titled The Legal Dragnet, says the current law leads to “an absence of rigour, quality, and precision as to the role of each defendant”, fails to set clear parameters for juries, and particularly affects young Black men and teenagers, who are most likely to be labelled and stereotyped as gang members.
It says the status quo “leaves the state unable to confidently assert that only those truly responsible are being convicted”.
In February, in response to a private member’s bill introduced by the Labour MP Kim Johnson which sought to change the law so only those who made a “significant contribution” to a crime could be held liable for it, the then shadow minister for youth justice, Janet Daby MP, told the House of Commons that “Labour has previously said that it would look to reform joint enterprise, and that remains our ambition”.
In 2o12, Keir Starmer, when director of public prosecutions (DPP), told the Commons justice committee that joint enterprise prosecution “does not work well” in the case of murder convictions, where “someone has played a very minor part in a very serious offence but is nonetheless convicted”.
Helen Mills, CCJS head of programmes, said the report showed that the law’s “wide scope of ambiguity is being filled by low-quality evidence at best, and discriminatory bias at worst. Unless the government commits to narrowing the scope of joint enterprise, the serious injustices highlighted here will persist.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are aware of concerns that these prosecutions may disproportionately affect some communities. However, it is important that those who do commit crimes are brought to justice.
“We are keeping this matter under review and will consider changes to the law where necessary.”
