Woman serving 30 year sentence for murder her husband committed

[IwantToRetire]

Labour MP Kim Johnson has renewed her call for urgent reform of the Joint Enterprise doctrine as the BBC screened a documentary examining the case of a women serving a 30-year sentence for murder.

The programme tells the story of a woman who was convicted of murder under Joint Enterprise even though it was her partner who committed the crime. She is detained at HMP Styal.

“No woman should lose her liberty simply because of who she knows, who she loves, or because she was unable to escape a coercive and abusive relationship. After hearing extensive evidence through the Westminster Commission on Joint Enterprise, one thing is abundantly clear: this law continues to cause profound injustice and must be urgently reformed.”

“Women – particularly young women, mothers, and survivors of domestic abuse and coercive control – are being swept into the criminal justice system under a doctrine that too often fails to distinguish between mere association and genuine culpability. Too often, women are left carrying the heaviest consequences of Joint Enterprise, while simultaneously being portrayed as ‘failed’ partners – a framing that ignores coercion, abuse and the realities of power and control within intimate relationships.

Full article https://insidetime.org/newsround/mp-calls-for-reform-of-joint-enterprise-after-bbc-broadcasts-new-documentary/

I'm not sure about this one. I helped him kill someone because he had coercive control over me?

The blurb for this documentary says

"meticulously plotted the murder together ........ that she contributed to, premeditated and planned the murder. This was proven through her internet search history"

30 years is one hell of a long sentence if there was any doubt about how involved she was.

There may of course have been a miscarriage of justice, but the MP is not correct to give the impression that joint enterprise is based on 'who you know' or 'who you love'. It is based on statute and case law, an actus reus and a mens rea, with the case having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I realise that the modern world and social media demand constant emoting, rather than logical, reasoned argument, but I wish MPs would just be a bit more rigorous in their analysis and explanations.

Joint enterprise isn’t just knowledge - it’s being part of a group (or pair) that commit a crime together - even if one person goes too far, if it was foreseeable, she’s guilty.

Its An absolutely necessary principle in law.

I think we all know that Joint Enterprise could mean someone who just tagged along can be treated as being a guilty as whoever actually committed a crime.

But what this is about is the crossover from the years of work that DV projects and researchers have done about the impact of coercive control.

So it is too simplistic to say well she was there or she didn't turn him into the police, given that coercive control is now recognised as being real.

If you want to dismiss the concept of coercive control then that brings up a whole other discussion about "why do women stay", the most often question asked about women who have remained in a violent relationship.

I don't think you have to completely dismiss the concept of coercive control to think that people still retain some responsibility for their actions. I understand why women find it incredibly difficult to leave abusive relationships, that doesn't mean I think they have no agency at all. In this case, she wasn't just a passive partner who got dragged along (which I do think is a justice issue with joint enterprise).

I think there are a lot of issues with joint enterprise. It does need a review.
I'm not sure about this particular case, there's not much detail of coercive control.

I think this is the case. Her application to appeal was turned down.

Rex v Rachel Fulstow share.google/Hi6aWdaejH3xHnqEL
I'm not sure that the recognition of coercive control should enable it to be claimed as a get out of jail free card without scrutiny.

Being subject to coercive control could bring in to play some defences, so it is not a case of dismissing it. There is too much over-simplifying often, with criminal law in particular, and unfortunately MPs often do this. It's one of the reasons we have a lot of legislation that doesn't really work. Media picks up a story, in turn picked up by an MP under pressure from the public, and then 'something must be done'. Quite often, something actually doesn't need to be done. It's just that people don't understand the law. Or people expect the law to not apply because of x y or z. It is not necessarily the law that is wrong.

Sounds like a disturbing idea;

"No woman should lose her liberty simply because of who she knows, who she loves, or because she was unable to escape a coercive and abusive relationship"

Or? The "because she was unable to escape a coercive and abusive relationship" is the only one of those options that a "woman" potentially should lose her liberty. Why would being a woman be a reason they shouldn't be liable to laws like everyone else for the other two reasons?

And it is still only potentially, it is possible to be in an abusive relationship but to have actually fully been part of and wanted to help kill someone separately to this as well.

I fully accept that coercive control happens.

Sorry, but I can't accept that any amount of coercive control gets you off the hook for "meticulously" planning someone else's murder.

I can't stand Kim Johnson. She used to be my MP, until a recent boundary change. She signals virtue on all of the predictable causes.

Yes, people can be coerced within the context of an unequal relationship, but we do still, ultimately, have responsibility for our actions. Especially murder.

Agree that coercive control does account for people not leaving and making bad decisions but only up to a point. Otherwise the argument appears to be that people (women) who suffer in abusive coercive relationships have no agency and no responsibility at all.

This.

In the same way when you would see all these "but I luv him" women who literally let their partners murder their babies because they are that desperate for "a man" or his approval or whatever be completely absolved of any responsibility because of cohersive control was imo wrong.
The fact courts are now starting to hold these women to account is imo correct.

Similarly she clearly had a hand in this and its right she should be held accountable - is 30 yrs proportional though ...? I dont know

While Joint Enterprise has often been spread to some incredulous limits (like being on a whatsapp group where threats are being made despite having zero part in it) the “I was being coerced abused” just seems to be used in some cases to exempt a woman from wrongdoing. In this case she “meticulously helped him plan the murder”. That’s not facing jail for simply loving somebody. It seems incredibly infantilising.