Supreme Court rules misinterpretation of Joint Enterprise test
The doctrine of Joint Enterprise has long been criticised. It has been used to convict people in cases with two or more defendants, if one of the co-accused ‘could’ have foreseen violent acts, carried out by their associates.
Today, in the Supreme Court, it has been ruled that it was wrong to consider ‘foresight’ as a sufficient test. The case of Ameen Jogee, who was convicted under Joint Enterprise for the murder of a police officer in 2011, was heard before a panel of five Supreme Court Judges this morning. Jogee had been convicted of murder alongside his co-accused Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Paul Fyfe in the heart, as he had ‘egged him [Hirsi] on’ from the doorstep. Jogee argued that as he was not in the house at the time of the incident he could not have foreseen what Hirsi was intending to do.
Lord Neuberger delivered the judgement confirming that it was wrong to treat ‘foresight’ as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder.
It is expected that this decision will create opportunity for hundreds of prisoners to seek appeals.
Cases which are successful upon appeal and would have carried a shorter sentence may be able to seek damages for the extra time served in prison.
If you feel that you or a relative has been or will be affected by this change, it is of the upmost importance that you seek legal advice as soon as possible. We have a specialist criminal team here at Southerns who will work hard to appeal your original sentence and/or represent you throughout any re-trial. We also work closely with our experienced Actions Against the Police department, who will provide advice on any potential claim for damages arising from wrongful convictions.
For further information or to make an appointment please call 01282 422711.