I'm all for hard-hitting drama and making TV dramas about injustice, etc, but when that is based upon something so fundamentally incorrect and misleading, well I don't know what I can say about it. There are plenty of legitimate legal injustices about which one could write, so there's no need to make up complete bollocks.
He legged it I'd guess, that's how it seemed to me
Ok. If that was the case then I would have thought he would've been questioned as to why they were after him in the first place. He was a witness...of sorts. Well, he was in the vicinity at least.
Can someone explain the concept for those that don't understand it?
'The Crown Prosecution Service say the rule of joint enterprise can be used when two or more people join in committing the same crime, when someone encourages or assists another in committing a crime or where someone commits a second crime in the course of a first, which others involved could have foreseen.'
I can see where this is useful - eg when a gang of thugs set upon a victim and there is no forensic proof to show which of them dealt the fatal blow. They were all involved, so they're all charged with murder.
But apparently one of the lads 'involved' with the Garry Newlove murder was registered blind, and could therefore neither take part in the crime, nor do anything to stop it, but he is still serving life for murder under JE.
If he was misinformed that he would be charged under the joint enterprise then he has a right to appeal. This wouldn't happen this way in a real case. His lawyer would have told him to plead not guilty.
I agree I just can't believe his lawyer would have advised him to plead guilty, the case against him particularly was very weak. The prosecution would still have needed to convince the jury that he was aware of what was planned and played an active part in the crime. There just isn't enough evidence to prove this. I can understand the other defendants pleading guilty to the lesser offence but not him.
Can someone explain the concept for those that don't understand it?
It is a concept by which more than one person can be charged with the same offence (usually murder), even if in the case of murder the evidence suggests that there was only one fatal blow or it was struck by one person. It is based on the premise that the other 'participants' were aware of the intention to kill/cause GBH and/or that they had foreseen the likelihood of the result. It removes the requirement for the police to identify which of the group was responsible for the fatal blow, because under joint enterprise they are all assumed to be as guilty as each other.
does anyone know whatthe background music was about 10 mins ago ( at the start of the trial ) ? sounded a bit 'coldplay-ish' - Shazam didn't recognise it:(
Sounds very much like Robert Wyatt. If you check him out on YouTube you'll hear the resemblance.
But apparently one of the lads 'involved' with the Garry Newlove murder was registered blind, and could therefore neither take part in the crime, nor do anything to stop it, but he is still serving life for murder under JE.
He had an eye condition which would have entitled him to be registered blind, but it is a condition which responds to corrective lenses, so it's by no means clearcut as to how much vision he actually had.
He is the 15yo Jordan Cunliffe referred to at the end of the drama, whose mother Janet is campaigning against the principle of joint enterprise. Jimmy McGovern is patron of the campaign.
Exactly! I think this is very poor factually, and it will give the impression to uninformed members of the public that if they are ever on the periphery of criminal activity they had better keep their mouths shut or they will end up getting charged with the crime as well. It is irresponsible nonsense. No wonder they normally put his short dramas in the daytime slot.
It's the Jimmy McGovern agenda though isn't it ? The down trodden working class good, the Police & the Law bad !
Didn't joint enterprise come in partly because of all those gang stabbings in London a while ago?
According to the drama it's been on the books for a long time. Perhaps it has been used more frequently in recent times.
It is similar to being an accomplice to a crime though I can see that there is a distinction.
The drama wasn't really to my taste. Too didactic and focusing on what seems to be a relatively small and obscure aspect of the law (though naturally it's important to those affected by it).
I normally like Jimmy McGovern, but I thought this was too polemical. Too many scenes where the characters are talking directly to the audience, and they've taken the supposed miscarriages of justice to extremes.
The Garry Newlove murder, which supposedly inspired this, was a case of a man being kicked to death by a group of teenagers, one of whom claims that as he is blind he wasn't taking part in the attack. The Andrew Ayres murder, referenced in the closing credits, was a case of a woman initiating an aggressive argument after being told off for jumping a taxi queue, and subsequently claiming that she didn't realise that her friends would take it as a cue to kill the guy.
Whatever the merits of those two cases, they are no way the same as a teenager being deliberately misled in order to place him at the scene of an assault, and on top of that an innocent bystander being stabbed to death while the intended victim was being threatened.
Michelle Fairley's character has a diatribe about how there are dozens of kids doing life in prison who are twice as innocent as the film's protagonist, but I don't think that's actually true.
According to the drama it's been on the books for a long time. Perhaps it has been used more frequently in recent times.
It is similar to being an accomplice to a crime though I can see that there is a distinction.
The drama was correct in that it was originally devised to deter aristocrats from duelling; it allowed the authorities to arrest the seconds, doctors etc along with the aristos themselves in the event that one was killed or seriously injured.
The most (in)famous use of joint enterprise murder, although I don't know how many people realise it, was the conviction and subsequent execution of Derek Bentley, who was charged under joint enterprise, since it was known he did not pull the trigger.
It tended to lie fallow for a while, and charges such as conspiracy or aid and abet were used instead. But it seems to have made a comeback in the past 10 years or so, which I can only assume is a deliberate policy shift by police and CPS.
I thought it was well done, but one thing distracted me - if they were in Manchester, wasn't it a bit of a coincidence that the Detective and the mother of the victim knew each other from (presumably, from their accents) Northern Ireland?
Very moving letter at the end. Well worth watching.
Comments
lol
Mrs Ward was in Cracker, took me a little while to figure it out
I'd never heard of enterprise before, scary stuff
I can see where this is useful - eg when a gang of thugs set upon a victim and there is no forensic proof to show which of them dealt the fatal blow. They were all involved, so they're all charged with murder.
But apparently one of the lads 'involved' with the Garry Newlove murder was registered blind, and could therefore neither take part in the crime, nor do anything to stop it, but he is still serving life for murder under JE.
I agree I just can't believe his lawyer would have advised him to plead guilty, the case against him particularly was very weak. The prosecution would still have needed to convince the jury that he was aware of what was planned and played an active part in the crime. There just isn't enough evidence to prove this. I can understand the other defendants pleading guilty to the lesser offence but not him.
It is a concept by which more than one person can be charged with the same offence (usually murder), even if in the case of murder the evidence suggests that there was only one fatal blow or it was struck by one person. It is based on the premise that the other 'participants' were aware of the intention to kill/cause GBH and/or that they had foreseen the likelihood of the result. It removes the requirement for the police to identify which of the group was responsible for the fatal blow, because under joint enterprise they are all assumed to be as guilty as each other.
It just means guilty by association.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-07-06/jimmy-mcgoverns-common-people-will-realise-its-based-on-reality-and-theyll-be-shocked
Sounds very much like Robert Wyatt. If you check him out on YouTube you'll hear the resemblance.
He had an eye condition which would have entitled him to be registered blind, but it is a condition which responds to corrective lenses, so it's by no means clearcut as to how much vision he actually had.
He is the 15yo Jordan Cunliffe referred to at the end of the drama, whose mother Janet is campaigning against the principle of joint enterprise. Jimmy McGovern is patron of the campaign.
It's the Jimmy McGovern agenda though isn't it ? The down trodden working class good, the Police & the Law bad !
According to the drama it's been on the books for a long time. Perhaps it has been used more frequently in recent times.
It is similar to being an accomplice to a crime though I can see that there is a distinction.
The drama wasn't really to my taste. Too didactic and focusing on what seems to be a relatively small and obscure aspect of the law (though naturally it's important to those affected by it).
If Ken Livingstone did dramas...
The Garry Newlove murder, which supposedly inspired this, was a case of a man being kicked to death by a group of teenagers, one of whom claims that as he is blind he wasn't taking part in the attack. The Andrew Ayres murder, referenced in the closing credits, was a case of a woman initiating an aggressive argument after being told off for jumping a taxi queue, and subsequently claiming that she didn't realise that her friends would take it as a cue to kill the guy.
Whatever the merits of those two cases, they are no way the same as a teenager being deliberately misled in order to place him at the scene of an assault, and on top of that an innocent bystander being stabbed to death while the intended victim was being threatened.
Michelle Fairley's character has a diatribe about how there are dozens of kids doing life in prison who are twice as innocent as the film's protagonist, but I don't think that's actually true.
The drama was correct in that it was originally devised to deter aristocrats from duelling; it allowed the authorities to arrest the seconds, doctors etc along with the aristos themselves in the event that one was killed or seriously injured.
The most (in)famous use of joint enterprise murder, although I don't know how many people realise it, was the conviction and subsequent execution of Derek Bentley, who was charged under joint enterprise, since it was known he did not pull the trigger.
It tended to lie fallow for a while, and charges such as conspiracy or aid and abet were used instead. But it seems to have made a comeback in the past 10 years or so, which I can only assume is a deliberate policy shift by police and CPS.
well why can't they just call it that, instead of joint enterprise...sounds like some kind of industrial law
It's not really guilt by association, that makes it sound unfair.
It's basically saying "you all planned this together, it was a joint enterprise, so you're all guilty, doesn't matter who did what"
Very moving letter at the end. Well worth watching.