Hundreds of killers could now walk free
Law on group attacks has been misinterpreted for 30 years, says Supreme Court
HUNDREDS of convicted murderers could be freed after a ruling by Supreme Court judges yesterday that threw convictions going back 30 years into question.
They said the ‘joint enterprise’ law used to bring a murder conviction even if the defendant did not strike the fatal blow has been wrong since the 1980s.
The finding came in the case of Ameen Jogee, a Leicester drug dealer found guilty of murdering former policeman Paul Fyfe in 2012.
Joint enterprise, which dates back nearly 350 years, allows a jury to bring in a murder verdict on someone who helped in a killing but did not attack the victim themselves.
It was the basis of the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the 1993 race murder of 18-year-old Stephen Lawrence.
But campaigners say it has been used by police and prosecutors to target gangs and win murder convictions against people who were simply bystanders.
They gained publicity from Common, a 2014 BBC1 documentary that lent support to calls for the release of Jordan Cunliffe, who was convicted of assisting in the beating to death of father-of-three Garry Newlove in 2007.
But Mr Fyfe’s widow, Tracey, said the Supreme Court ruling would allow people to
‘We know of 650 we think will be affected’
‘get away with murder’. Five judges led by Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger ruled that juries in joint enterprise cases have been misdirected since 1985.
A precedent set in a knife-killing case that year said that a suspect can be guilty of murder by joint enterprise if they ‘foresaw the possibility’ of the killing – for example they knew the killer had a gun and might use it.
But in the Jogee appeal yesterday, the Supreme Court justices said that only someone who actively wants to help a killing can be convicted of joint enterprise murder.
Lord Neuberger said the principle of joint enterprise murder is ‘not in question’, adding: ‘A person who intentionally assists or encourages another to commit an offence is guilty of that offence as a secondary party.’
He warned convicted murderers hoping for freedom: ‘The evidence may have been such that they would have been convicted anyway.’
Lawrence murderers Dobson and Norris are unlikely to be affected by the ruling. The evidence for their 2012 conviction, the trial judge said, was that they intended to cause serious injury – which would mean they remain guilty of murder despite the Supreme Court ruling.
However sources close to Stephen’s mother Doreen – now a Labour peer and police reform campaigner – indicated that they believe the men could appeal.
The Supreme Court said Jogee’s conviction for murder must be set aside. The 26-year- old was sentenced to 20 years in jail for the murder of Mr Fyfe. He and drug dealer Mohammed Hirsi, 29, went to the house of Fyfe’s girlfriend Naomi Reid, where there was a confrontation.
Jogee, who was outside with a bottle, shouted at Hirsi to do something to Mr Fyfe, and himself threatened to smash a bottle over his head. Hirsi stabbed Mr Fyfe with a kitchen knife.
Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs told the jury that Jogee could be guilty of murder because he knew Hirsi might use a knife.
Lord Neuberger said: ‘On the evidence and the jury’s verdict he was unquestionably guilty at least of manslaughter, and there was evidence on which they jury could have found him guilty of murder on a proper direction.’ The court will now decided whether Jogee should be retried or convicted of manslaughter.
Under his current sentence, Jogee will not be released until 2031. But if it was replaced with ten years for manslaughter, he could be freed this year.
The Supreme Court, which is the final appeal court in some Commonwealth countries, also ruled that a man convicted of murdering a cabbie in Jamaica should have his conviction set aside for the same reasons.
The pressure group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association praised the decision, adding: ‘We know of 650 people we think will be affected by the ruling.’