A man convicted of murder under the doctrine of “joint enterprise” because he encouraged a friend to stab a former police officer is mounting a supreme court challenge that could have important consequences for the controversial law.
Ameen Jogee and his friend Mohammed Hirsi, both in their 20s, were given life sentences after being convicted of Paul Fyfe’s murder at Nottingham crown court in March 2012.
Five supreme court justices are on Tuesday being asked to grapple with a legal issue relating to the fact that Jogee did not wield the knife, but urged Hirsi to do so.
Lawyers for Jogee will ask the justices to consider what prosecutors had to prove to establish that the killing was a joint enterprise rather than a lone act by Hirsi.
Jurors heard that Hirsi stabbed Fyfe at a house in Leicester in June 2011 while being encouraged by Jogee.
A judge imposed a minimum 22-year term on Hirsi, who lived in Leicester, and a minimum 20-year term on Jogee, who was of no fixed address. Jogee’s minimum term was later cut to 18 years by the appeal court.
Jogee has already lost fights over his conviction in the high court and the appeal court. The supreme court hearing is due to end this week.
Sandra Paul, a criminal lawyer at Kingsley Napley, says a review of law and practice relating to joint enterprise is long overdue.
“The current guidelines fail to take into account the immaturity of most young people and almost inevitably lead to a conviction with even peripheral involvement on the basis of presence or being capable of lending support,” she said.
“It is tempting to argue that joint enterprise is a redundant principle. I do not think I can sustain that argument. The doctrine is also being used in a variety of other areas such as curbing protectors, fixing benchmarks and other fraud cases where it is easier to demonstrate participation and encouragement than the common purpose required for a conspiracy.
“However I do believe the application of the principle of joint enterprise to the most serious of offences such as murder and GBH requires boundaries and careful application if it is to avoid unjust outcomes. The case of R v Jogee being considered by the supreme court today will have very important consequences in this respect.”
The central issue of the Jogee case, published on the supreme court website, is “whether the prosecution must prove that a secondary offender, who encouraged the primary offender to commit some harm, foresaw the primary offender’s acquisition and use of a weapon for murder as ‘probable’ rather than ‘possible’ in order to establish joint enterprise”.
The issue of joint enterprise prosecutions was highlighted last week when lawyers criticised the prosecution of a housing protester who was arrested after a fellow activist placed a sticker on a window of a block of luxury flats.
.png?w=600)
