Today I'm angry about.....

[BWFC_Insane]

Why wait for conviction? He should just be shot immediately on the spot.

Bit harsh. Maybe we should send him somewhere. A refugee from injustice if you will

I'm applying Hoboh's law. He wants them all shot. No point wasting time with convictions then. His mate gets in a fight, police come and just shoot everyone. It would soon stop them, whoever they are....

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Indeed. The problem is I don't trust the fcukers to use it wisely. The police already use legislation intended for anti-terrorism for every day stuff. In other words badly written law that can and does get abused.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Why wait for conviction? He should just be shot immediately on the spot.

Bit harsh. Maybe we should send him somewhere. A refugee from injustice if you will

I'm applying Hoboh's law. He wants them all shot. No point wasting time with convictions then. His mate gets in a fight, police come and just shoot everyone. It would soon stop them, whoever they are....

I'm not one for guns. Let him suffer with the migrants. I hear there is a nice camp in Calais - not too far from home

[Bruce Rioja]

I remember hearing a case many, many years ago involving the murder of an on duty Policeman. From what I can recall the accomplice said to his simpleton mate "Let him have it", and the debate was about whether or not he meant 'hand him the weapon' or 'shoot him'.

[Prufrock]

Derek Bentley that I think Bruce. One of the last people to be hanged, and a turning point in getting rid of the death penalty. In his case he literally was a "simpleton". There was also a film made in the 90s about him starring Christopher Ecclestone which has been on my "to watch" list for ages.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of some sort of "joint enterprise" law for gangs and the like, but the one we have dates from the 19th Century and from many accounts doesn't work.

[Bruce Rioja]

It was indeed, Pru. And I absolutely agree with your analogy.

[Beefheart]

Derek Bentley that I think Bruce. One of the last people to be hanged, and a turning point in getting rid of the death penalty. In his case he literally was a "simpleton". There was also a film made in the 90s about him starring Christopher Ecclestone which has been on my "to watch" list for ages.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of some sort of "joint enterprise" law for gangs and the like, but the one we have dates from the 19th Century and from many accounts doesn't work.

Wasn't there a ruling today about joint enterprise with the supreme court saying that it's been misapplied for the last 30 years? I had no idea what joint enterprise was when I read the headline earlier.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Derek Bentley that I think Bruce. One of the last people to be hanged, and a turning point in getting rid of the death penalty. In his case he literally was a "simpleton". There was also a film made in the 90s about him starring Christopher Ecclestone which has been on my "to watch" list for ages.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of some sort of "joint enterprise" law for gangs and the like, but the one we have dates from the 19th Century and from many accounts doesn't work.

I remember the case well as would Tango. Bentley was certainly a simpleton and also an epileptic. He wasn't really fit to stand trial. He was alleged to have made the ambiguous remark "let him have it, Chris" to his accomplice (hence the song), though they both denied it. Sad day for English law but at least it stopped the death penalty. Many years later I believe his accomplice helped Bentley get a pardon.

I agree on joint enterprise, Pru.

[Hoboh]

Under this country's ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy a young man of 21 is to be deported on his release from prison. He was 16 when arrested and was convicted using the law of Joint enterprise under which a person in a group or gang can be held responsible for the criminal acts of others.

More saddened than angry.

Why?
Say a gang kicked someone to death why should it matter whose boot delivered the fatal blow?
All guilty, all should be shot, soon put the stops on these 'teen' hard men!

So, you're in a pub and your mate has a barney with some bloke. It kicks off, you've nowt to do with it, but the bloke falls and cracks his head and dies. Should you be convicted under joint enterprise just because you were there?

No offence, but I would have thought a 'true mate' would do his best to get you the hell away from such a situation thus rendering himself far from an accomplice.
On the other hand if he's encouraging you to 'kill the bastard'........

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Under this country's ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy a young man of 21 is to be deported on his release from prison. He was 16 when arrested and was convicted using the law of Joint enterprise under which a person in a group or gang can be held responsible for the criminal acts of others.

More saddened than angry.

Why?
Say a gang kicked someone to death why should it matter whose boot delivered the fatal blow?
All guilty, all should be shot, soon put the stops on these 'teen' hard men!

So, you're in a pub and your mate has a barney with some bloke. It kicks off, you've nowt to do with it, but the bloke falls and cracks his head and dies. Should you be convicted under joint enterprise just because you were there?

No offence, but I would have thought a 'true mate' would do his best to get you the hell away from such a situation thus rendering himself far from an accomplice.
On the other hand if he's encouraging you to 'kill the bastard'........

Of course, but that doesn't mean they're listening. What I'm saying is that this law can put totally innocent bystanders in prison. That isn't right.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Why?
Say a gang kicked someone to death why should it matter whose boot delivered the fatal blow?
All guilty, all should be shot, soon put the stops on these 'teen' hard men!

So, you're in a pub and your mate has a barney with some bloke. It kicks off, you've nowt to do with it, but the bloke falls and cracks his head and dies. Should you be convicted under joint enterprise just because you were there?

No offence, but I would have thought a 'true mate' would do his best to get you the hell away from such a situation thus rendering himself far from an accomplice.
On the other hand if he's encouraging you to 'kill the bastard'........

Of course, but that doesn't mean they're listening. What I'm saying is that this law can put totally innocent bystanders in prison. That isn't right.

I presume joint enterprise means they went together for the purpose of causing a bit of bother or he knew that his mate was so doing. However, the police may indeed use it against the 'innocent' bystander.

[TANGODANCER]

I remember the case well as would Tango. Bentley was certainly a simpleton and also an epileptic. He wasn't really fit to stand trial. He was alleged to have made the ambiguous remark "let him have it, Chris" to his accomplice (hence the song), though they both denied it. Sad day for English law but at least it stopped the death penalty. Many years later I believe his accomplice helped Bentley get a pardon. I agree on joint enterprise, Pru.

I certainly remember the case Monty, ( as I do the Ruth Ellis hanging which took place a couple of years later) and the hoo-ha it caused publicly, but as I was only thirteen at the time I won't claim to recall many facts. Instead, I'll post this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One fact that was much talked about at the time and has to be relevant is that the pair turned out to break into and rob a place and took a gun, bullets, a knife and a knuckleduster. Beyond that, I was too young to understand the legal aspects. I do remember that the Craig/Bently affair, Ruth Ellis, the Profumo affair and the Burgess and Maclean spy scandal all caused major uproar in my teen and twenty years.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Simpletons who arm themselves with guns after a deliberate breakin aren't that simple in my humble opinion.
When a fella can't feed himself and is up before the beak for joint enterprise, I too will scream injustice, but until that day I'm quite happy that innocent bystanders very rarely get caught up in joint enterprise convictions.

And as for this asylum seeker, I'd have thought five years in prison might have told him this country just isn't the right place for him.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I presume joint enterprise means they went together for the purpose of causing a bit of bother or he knew that his mate was so doing. However, the police may indeed use it against the 'innocent' bystander.

Yes, I'm talking in a general sense. As a law it makes sense in some circumstances but not others. My concern is the law being applied correctly rather than conveniently, which I fear is the case too often.

[Prufrock]

It's worth remembering (as it often is when talking about whether someone should be guilty of a serious crime) that the alternative is not "let them go free". There are plenty of lesser crimes which can be charged to reflect the level of criminality.

[Worthy4England]

Of course, but that doesn't mean they're listening. What I'm saying is that this law can put totally innocent bystanders in prison. That isn't right.

Any laws can put the innocent in prison (bystanders or otherwise). So they're generally based on a probability anyhow. We could argue the day is long in a clear cut - if there is such a thing - gang thuggery related case as to whether the three people sticking the boot in but didn't deliver a fatal blow are less culpable than the person with them that pulled a knife and stabbed the poor sod.

It's of little consequence, from where I sit that three of them only intended to hand out a bit of a beating and might not have even known one of their mates was carrying a knife. They've collectively created the environment in which it's become possible to use the knife and set the whole situation up collectively. I don't think "fairness" should apply, at all. They should lock the four of 'em up and throw away the key.

[bobo the clown]

Interestingly this was not a law set in statute but one arising fro common law and interpretation. As such I can see how a fresh "clean eyes" judgement may say it's been developed in the wrong direction and still not say the past decisions were wrong.

[Enoch]

The Supreme Court ruled that trial judges had been wrongly interpreting law relating to joint enterprise. It didn't say that joint enterprise doesn't exist. As such there will undoubtedly be cases where people have been wrongly convicted, for those people the consequences will likely be catastrophic.

"It's not about gangs, it's not about people who intend to participate in serious crime. It's about those who are accused of assisting or encouraging or are on the periphery and that we make sure that we deal with trials in a fair and balanced way, not just scoop everybody up." Felicity Gerry QC

Anyone that has been 'scooped up' deserves better in my eyes.

[Worthy4England]

As long as they fill the void with a new offence of "being a scrote" carrying a maximum life sentence (as it's usually fairly self evident that there isn't a cure and most of the evidence a jury would need would present itself before the defendent was asked "Name?"), then I'm good with it.

I do wonder, with so much of our system relying on legal precedent why someone could rely on precedent now we've all acknowledged the some judges are fcuk-ups?

[Hoboh]

As long as they fill the void with a new offence of "being a scrote" carrying a maximum life sentence (as it's usually fairly self evident that there isn't a cure and most of the evidence a jury would need would present itself before the defendent was asked "Name?"), then I'm good with it.

I do wonder, with so much of our system relying on legal precedent why someone could rely on precedent now we've all acknowledged the some judges are fcuk-ups?

Legal people have to keep feeding the system with bollocks to keep the cash cow chain growing!
I suppose a jury had no option in these cases, yes the judge could direct, but ultimately, they found the fcuker guilty.
Funny the blame is always on the legal side yet jury's get away with it.
Actually, come to think of it, judges seem to be influencing jury's a little too much TBH.
Sack the crusty old fools!