Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Criminal Defence Blog

Joint Enterprise Law Wrongly Interpreted For 30 Years

Posted on: February 22nd, 2016 by steve

Awards - Frames - Medium - 1000 x 313 (No Scaling Req)

The Supreme Court have ruled that the Joint Enterprise law, which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not deliver the fatal blow, has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years.

 

The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases where it could be argued that the defendant ‘could’ have foreseen that their associates would commit violent acts.  Supreme Court judges have now ruled that this ‘foresight’ test was wrong and should not have been used.

 

It is expected that hundreds of prisoners will be able to seek Appeals due to this change in the joint enterprise law, with some prisoners receiving lesser convictions and others having their convictions quashed entirely.

 

The decision follows five Supreme Court Judges considering the case of Ameen Jogee, who was given a life sentence under a joint enterprise conviction for the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.

 

Jogee was accused of encouraging his friend, Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Paul Fyfe in the heart.  Hirsi also received a life sentence.

 

Jogee argued that he was not in the house at the time of the offence, and could not have foreseen what Hirsi intended to do.

 

Joint enterprise law has been used in several high profile cases, including the murder of Stephen Lawrence, whereby David Norris and Gary Dobson were both convicted under joint enterprise in 2012 for his 1993 murder.

 

Lord Neuberger, when delivering this new judgment on joint enterprise law, said that it was wrong to treat foresight as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder:

 

“The court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984.  And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right.”

 

Jogee’s conviction has been set aside, meaning his original conviction no longer stands.  The ruling does not mean that Jogee or others who similarly should not have been convicted under the joint enterprise law will walk free – Jogee was found to be unquestionably guilty of manslaughter and potentially guilty of murder on other grounds.

 

Lord Neuberger further confirmed that:

 

“A person who joins in a crime, which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death then results, is guilty at least of manslaughter.”

 

It is also important to note that a person who intentionally encourages or assists with the committing of a crime is as guilty as the person who physically commits the crime, and that this ruling on joint enterprise does not mean that all joint enterprise convictions are unsafe.

 

If you would like to discuss joint enterprise law in relation to a loved one, call our expert team now on 01623 397200.

 

 

 

Sexual Assault Solicitors: Asperger’s Syndrome

Posted on: December 17th, 2015 by steve

sexual assault solicitors

Sexual Assault Solicitors: Asperger’s Syndrome

 

Forrest Williams are specialist sexual assault solicitors and we were instructed recently to represent a vulnerable 18 year old, Harry, who was charged with two counts of sexual assault. The allegation was that he had instigated conversation with two females on separate occasions and proceeded to touch them, the touching involving kissing their foreheads and placing his arm around them.

 

 

 

Sexual assault is an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

 

  1. A person (A) commits an offence if –
    1. He intentionally touches another person (b),
    2. The touching is sexual,
    3. B does not consent to the touching, and
    4. A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

 

Harry admitted that he had spoken to and touched the females as alleged, but told us that his intentions were not sexual and that he believed the girls had consented. The difficulty was that he had made a full admission in police interview, accepting that his intentions were sexual and it was clear that the females had not consented.

 

Upon dealing with Harry and his very concerned parents, it was clear that the young man had some difficulties. Thankfully, due to our specialist knowledge as sexual assault solicitors, we recognised this and understood it, and advised Harry’s parents that he should be assessed for Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

 

We guided and supported Harry and his family through this emotional process, referring him to a trusted expert who conducted an in-depth assessment and diagnosed Harry with Asperger’s Syndrome.

 

Our expert prepared an in-depth report commenting on the prosecution evidence against Harry, including his behaviour in the police interview. She concluded that as part of his Asperger’s Syndrome, Harry was very susceptible to being lead and would answer how he believed people wanted him to, without realising he was doing this. This explained his answers in police interview. When the officer, clearly concerned about a female reporting an alleged sexual assault, told Harry that the female hadn’t specifically requested him to touch her, Harry was so eager to agree with the officer and please him that he would answer with, “I completely agree, it’s out of order and I shouldn’t have touched her at all”. He would rephrase the officer’s questions and statements and present them as his own answers, almost word for word.

 

This greatly helped our case, and allowed us to do two things –

 

Firstly, it allowed us to request that Harry’s 5 day trial hearing take into account his diagnosis and make some simple changes to allow the trial process to be accessible for him.

 

Secondly, it allowed us to present an already strong case to the prosecution and place some pressure on them to review the matter and consider withdrawing the charges before trial.

 

Finally, after many months of working tirelessly on Harry’s case every single day, the prosecution confirmed that they would drop the case.

 

Caseworker Katie Forrest, who specialises in sexual defence cases and has a particular interest in defending vulnerable clients, was able to make the telephone call to Harry’s family to share the good news.

 

“I was actually on vacation in America when the news came in, and the whole team back in the office were absolutely delighted and so excited – this case was very special to us all. I rang the family, who were also on vacation, and shared the good news and they were so relieved and happy. While every case is important and meaningful to us here at Forrest Williams, there are some cases that will stay with you forever, and this is definitely one of those cases for me.”

 

If you are being investigated for a sexual offence, call our expert team now on 01623 397200.

 

Can I Challenge or Remove A Caution After Accepting It?

Posted on: November 12th, 2015 by steve

Can I Challenge or Remove A Caution After Accepting It?

 

If you have accepted a caution in relation to an offence and now wish to challenge it or have it removed for some reason, the brief answer is that yes, such a thing is possible.  It is not, however, easy or straightforward, and you will certainly want to take specialist legal advice.

 

This page is designed to provide an overview of the ways of challenging or removing a caution.  Contact us for advice about your specific circumstances.

 

 

 

Essentially the potential routes to removal are:

 

(1) by way of complaint about the use of and manner in which it was administered. So consider if there was anything to suggest they did not follow their correct procedure.  Of course, this requires knowledge of what correct procedure is, so specialist legal advice should be sought on this point.

 

(2) issue judicial proceedings (see outline below). Warning: this is a costly procedure and losing can mean there are even greater costs implications in respect of covering expenses incurred by the other side.  Proceed with caution!

 

An outline of Judicial Review in reference to Caution

 

Where a simple caution has been accepted by the offender, and administered by the police, there is no formal right of appeal. However the caution may be challenged by making a formal complaint against the police force, and by making an application to be judicially reviewed.  Judicial review is the mechanism by which the courts ensure that public bodies have acted within the powers they have been given.

 

Procedure

 

Judicial Review may be made against any public body or if the body making the decision is exercising a public law function.  Any individual wishing to make an application must have sufficient interest in relation to the matter in which the claim relates. In relation to a caution, any individual who receives a caution will be deemed to have sufficient interest to make the claim, as they are personally affected by a police force’s decision.

 

An application for Judicial Review of a caution must be filed promptly, and within a period of no more than 3 months, after which the grounds for Judicial Review arose. Although an application may be made out of this time period this is only in exceptional circumstances. Any application should be made without any undue delay.

 

Challenges

 

An application for Judicial Review of a caution can be challenged on the basis of Illegality; where the police force has acted without legal authority. The police force are required to ensure that all the relevant steps are complied with and that a caution is appropriate in the circumstances. The police must: 

 

  1. Ensure that the offender understands that they do not have to make an immediate decision on whether to accept the simple caution but can consider the matter and, if need be, take independent legal advice; 

 

  1. Ensure the offender understands that they have the right to legal advice at any time during the process; 

 

  1. Ensure that the offender understands the effect of the simple caution and the implications of accepting the caution;

 

  1. Ensure that the offender has made a clear and reliable admission of guilt in respect of the offence or offences for which the simple caution is being administered; 

 

  1. Confirm that the offender consents to receiving a simple caution; 

 

  1. Ask the offender to sign a form setting out the implications of the simple caution (“the simple caution form”); 

 

  1. Sign the simple caution form themselves and provide the offender with a copy to take away. 

 

If the police have failed to comply with any of the above requirements, or those set out in the PACE codes, then the court may consider it suitable to quash the caution altogether.

 

If you would like to challenge or remove a caution, contact our expert team for further advice on 01623 397200.

 

Awards - Frames - Medium - 1000 x 313 (No Scaling Req)