Joint Enterprise cases have “soared” over the past 40 years, study finds

Joint Enterprise cases have “soared” over the past 40 years, study finds
Credit: Andy Aitchison

Joint enterprise cases in England and Wales have soared over the past four decades, according to a report calling for a change in the law so that individuals are only held accountable for their own actions. 

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) also found that sentences have become harsher for those convicted under the doctrine, which allows for individuals to be found guilty of crimes they did not physically carry out if they were present at the scene or held a strong association with the principal culprit.

The report claims prosecutors have drifted from distinguishing between those who have caused a death and those who may only be responsible for lesser offences, resulting in “job lot” prosecutions in which bit-part players are convicted of the serious crimes of others. The number of homicide cases involving three or more defendants tripled between 1984 and 2024, from 18 to 54 cases a year, the report finds – and they now account for nearly 10 per cent of all homicide prosecutions.

Excluding life sentences, 42 per cent of defendants convicted of manslaughter in multi-defendant cases in which they were not considered the main suspect were found to have received a prison sentence of more than 10 years in 2022, compared with 7 per cent in 2012. One of the CCJS’s recommendations is that there should be a separate, less harsh, sentencing framework for secondary parties.

Helen Mills, the Director of Programmes at the CCJS and the report’s co-author, said: “There are clear limits to what can be achieved through legal challenges and individual appeals alone. With the Law Commission currently reviewing homicide laws and the government expressing a commitment to fixing a broken justice system, there is a unique opportunity to move beyond the current logjam. In place of an unjust, job lot approach, we need to make sure people are held to account just for what they actually did.”

The report found that about 40 per cent of those convicted in homicide cases involving four or more people are aged 18 to 24. While convictions of children for murder are rare, since 2010 just over half of all children under 16 convicted of murder were in multi-defendant cases in which they were not considered the main suspect – the highest proportion of any age group – according to the report. Black people were three times more likely than White people to be convicted in group cases of four or more defendants, echoing the Crown Prosecution Service’s own joint enterprise monitoring data.

A 2016 Supreme Court judgment found the law had been wrongly applied for over 30 years, with the bar set too low in respect of the required intent of any secondary co-accused. The judgment led campaigners to hope for a change of course, but it has had no sustained impact on the number of multi-defendant homicide prosecutions. 

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are aware of the concerns on joint enterprise which is why we are keeping the law under review. There are currently several ongoing reviews in this area, and any reforms should be informed by their findings.” Justice Secretary David Lammy supported a change in the law on Joint Enterprise whilst in opposition. 

The CCJS is to hold a conference on this topic on 29 April from 6pm to 7.30pm. It can be joined online via its website: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/joint-enterprise-balance.

Inside Time Reports

Inside Time Reports

One thought on “Joint Enterprise cases have “soared” over the past 40 years, study finds

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Conditions of acceptance of website comments

Inside Time does not wish to apply censorship to comments posted on its website, however, we may remove posts if they have been flagged as inappropriate.

You must not publish material that includes anything that:
- is considered to be offensive or includes inappropriate language
- may incite others to break the law
- identifies others by name, unless referring to the author of a previously published item
- includes unsubstantiated claims or hearsay but presented as fact
- includes personal opinions that are presented as fact
- includes discriminatory or derogatory comments about any person or section of society
- includes the alleged offences of named individuals unless it is considered to be already common public knowledge

All comments should address the original article or mailbag item and comments criticising other posters will not be posted unless they add something material to the original item.
Multiple postings under different names from the same IP address will not be posted and will be blocked from further posting.
Comments will be deleted if they contain foul language.
Inside Time reserve the right to republish comments in its newspaper or in any of its other publications, however, in these cases, comments will be anonymised.
The views and opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position Inside Time.
×