"Joint Enterprise" as discussed on Newsnight tonight. Fair/Not Fair?

[Putrifyno]

I was on the jury in a GBH trial several years back where the judge had to go into a long spiel on where the law stood with this. One guy on trial, several others had vanished after the act - never charged. A group of lads brutally attacked 2 men and 2 women outside a nightclub. The injuries were nasty, but it couldn't be proved who did what exactly.

The legal precept of joint enterprise meant that the defendant was legally guilty - whether he was the one who did this kick, or that punch etc. He admitted taking part in the act and offered only his defence that he was now working with disable children I remember the jury had HUGE problems with this. Everyone agreed he was there. He admitted he was there. The judge's instruction therefore implied he was guilty via joint enterprise, though noone could state for definite what he had done exactly. He got 18 months.

Noone?

I didn't see Newsnight but agree that he should be responsible. Theoretically, if he was not, everyone in this situation would be incentivised to just say that the other blokes did all the bad stuff and they don't want to say who that is. All they need is one person who was not caught and they all get off for all the behaviour. If you are involved in a beating, or a rape or another serious crime, you should be punished.

At times, and in some places, even someone who knows about the crime (accessory) and does nothing, can be punished as if they were involved.

I didn't see Newsnight either, but there's an old saying of "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" which seems appropriate.

Or, "birds of a feather flock together", so it's hardly a new human concept.

Of course one could lighten the sentence by turning Queen's Evidence.

If you choose not to "shop your mates" or "be a grass" (and I can understand why that might be) then you accept your martyrdom.

And hope your "mates" will see you right when you get out.

It's like joint and several liability in financial terms for a debt.

Custard, I got really frustrated because the judge's instructions were so clear, and there were people there who felt sorry for him! In fact, as I recall, it was only because one of the others said that he would get a suspended sentence that everyone agreed on a guilty verdict. He had form too - which was only mentioned after sentencing. The POV on Newsnight seemed to be that this was a very unfair principle.