Murder & Joint enterprise

Ned_led16

If one member of a gang of 4 or 5 delievered a fatal stab wound... and went beyond the joint agreement .......whats the legal issue with two others who are on trial for murder and have forsensic evidence linking them to the incident... If they plead not guilty .... (lets say they were there - however there was no agreement to kill or cause serious injury..........so technically they are not guilty as a joint enterprise or murder but when there is forensic evidence) surely they will be given life imrisonment... Must be hard for a Judge to hand down a life sentence in this scenario when he knows the person didnt do it!

I suppose its a better plea to say, not guitly to murder opposed to saying i was there but i didnt do it and it wasnt arranged b4?
I am thinking that its not really justice for the victim is it or the public!

Milk & Honey

Ned_led16 wrote: »

If one memebr of a gang of 4 or 5 delievered a fatal stab wound... and went beyond the joint agreement .......whats the legal issue with two others who are on trial for murder and have forsensic evidence linking them to the incident... If you plea not guilty ....

I am thinking that its not really justice for the victim is it?

The victim is dead by the time of the trial, so what is the point?

johnnyskeleton

If a person was involved in the assault but did not have the intention to commit murder or cause serious harm and the jury accepts that then they can return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, in such case the judge does not have to impose a life sentence.

If the jury don't accept that there is a doubt as to intention then they can convict on murder and the judge will impose life.

So in your scenario if it is believed the person was less culpable then a lesser sentence will be imposed.

Not sure if that answers your question.

coylemj

Ned_led16 wrote: »

If one member of a gang of 4 or 5 delievered a fatal stab wound... and went beyond the joint agreement .......whats the legal issue with two others who are on trial for murder

People who act together to commit a crime are assumed to be about a common purpose or joint enterprise. The legal principle which applies is that if there is a murder committed in the commission of the crime then all of them are guilty as principals.

You talk about someone going 'beyond the joint agreement' but it's not as simple as that, it's not like bank robbers draw up a written agreement before they go out to knock off a bank where they set down in writing what they will and won't do if (e.g.) the cashier refuses to hand over the money.

If three men go to rob a bank and all three have loaded guns, we can assume that they are not setting out to kill anyone but if one of them kills the cashier then they are all guilty of murder. Even a participant who didn't carry a gun but knew that they were going to commit an armed robery would be just as guilty as the guy who pulls the trigger.

Ned_led16 wrote: »

Must be hard for a Judge to hand down a life sentence in this scenario when he knows the person didnt do it!

It's not hard for the judge at all since it's the jury that brings in the verdict and in the case of murder the judge doesn't have any influence over the sentence. People in times past have been hanged for murder where an accomplice actually did the evil deed and their only crime was to be part of the joint enterprise.

Ned_led16 wrote: »

I suppose its a better plea to say, not guitly to murder opposed to saying i was there but i didnt do it and it wasnt arranged b4?
I am thinking that its not really justice for the victim is it or the public!

'It wasn't arranged beforehand' is no defence, all are equally guilty because they were about a common purpose.

You don't even have to be there to be guilty of the murder since a person who supplied the guns and/or was involved in the planning of the robbery can be convicted of murder as an accessory before the fact.

Tayla

I don't really fully understand what you're saying, does the judge know in this case which of the members of the gang actually killed the person?

coylemj

Tayla wrote: »

I don't really fully understand what you're saying, does the judge know in this case which of the members of the gang actually killed the person?

It wouldn't really matter if the judge didn't know, he would charge the jury that as members of a joint enterprise, all of the participants would be equally culpable so even if the prosecution couldn't identify the person who pulled the trigger, if it was shown (beyond reasonable doubt) that the accused before the court had particpated in the crime and one of them (unidentified) had killed someone in the course of the crime, then they could all be convicted of murder.

Consider the case of Gardai Morley and Byrne (1980), they were both shot dead while pursuing bank robbers in Co. Roscommon and three men were convicted of murder though if I recall correctly they never identified who shot who but all three were convicted and sentenced to death, later commuted to 40 years imprisonment.

32minutes

Reading more about the Anabels murder of Brian Murphy would also be a good reference, as far as I know it ended up getting very technical about who did what in the group

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote:

People who act together to commit a crime are assumed to be about a common purpose or joint enterprise. The legal principle which applies is that if there is a murder committed in the commission of the crime then all of them are guilty as principals.

even where the crime eg burglary is allthat is contemplated and the use of deadly force or indeed any force is not contemplated?

You talk about someone going 'beyond the joint agreement' but it's not as simple as that, it's not like bank robbers draw up a written agreement before they go out to knock off a bank where they set down in writing what they will and won't do if (e.g.) the cashier refuses to hand over the money.

but agreement can be express or implicit from the circumstances, no?

'It wasn't arranged beforehand' is no defence, all are equally guilty because they were about a common purpose.

I thought the prosecution had to prove that there was a common purpose ie an agreement to do something.

Tayla

coylemj wrote: »

It wouldn't really matter if the judge didn't know, he would charge the jury that as members of a joint enterprise, all of the participants would be equally culpable so even if the prosecution couldn't identify the person who pulled the trigger, if it was shown (beyond reasonable doubt) that the accused before the court had particpated in the crime and one of them (unidentified) had killed someone in the course of the crime, then they could all be convicted of murder.

Consider the case of Gardai Morley and Byrne (1980), they were both shot dead while pursuing bank robbers in Co. Roscommon and three men were convicted of murder though if I recall correctly they never identified who shot who but all three were convicted and sentenced to death, later commuted to 40 years imprisonment.

I would have thought that aswell but do you remember the Rebecca French case from a year or two ago? They all got off with murder and instead were done for impeding the investigation and attempting to dispose of the body.

Just read about that case again and apparently they couldn't charge them with murder because their detention had been unconstitutional and their confession had been inadmissable. The thing about the case was there was plenty of evidence to convict even without a confession or their earlier statements so I have no idea why they didn't go for the murder charge.

Ned_led16

The Steven lawrence Murder trial intrigues me. Ill prob be shot down for saying this but if you look at the interviews its easy to say who were the tough nuts and who were not. (who was capable of murder, and who was a career criminal)

There were 20 calls to the confidential police line within 24 hrs naming the individuals (see video 2 - Neil Acourt and David Norris). Everyone locally knew who did it - but they were hardly going to stand up in court and say yes i saw Neil Acourt on the Well... rd South London. So they got their mothers to stand up in Court and say yes my Son was at home that night!

Its a real pity the jury cant watch the following but ... they prob have already anyways!

David Norris & Neil Acourt dont present themselves too well in my opinion for someone defending a murder charge. The accourts even called themselves the Krays! Two of them carried knives b4 - one of there Fathers was caught with two loaded hand guns and an oozi initmidating witnesses.

Disturbing stuff - but i think the point is that Joint enterprise can result in an incorrect conviction.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=761CDEB7CEEB1AFB

johnnyskeleton

What I find interesting is that Dobson has been acquitted but is now being tried based on legislation passed in 2003 in the UK to permit retrials where new evidence comes to light. Unlike the Irish law of a similar nature passed last year, it applies retrospectively to trials prior to its enactment.

This seems very unfair to me that someone already acquitted should be tried again. I wonder, is the retrial limited only to the "new" evidence which has emerged i.e. does the jury have to make its decision based only on the new forensic science evidence?

Ned_led16

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report suggested that double jeopardy should be abrogated where "fresh and viable" new evidence came to light, and the Law Commission recommended in 2001 that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial. The Parliament of the United Kingdom implemented these recommendations by passing the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[27] introduced by then Home Secretary David Blunkett. The double jeopardy provisions of the Act came into force in April 2005,[28] but are applicable to crimes committed before then.

Under the 2003 Act, retrials are now allowed if there is new and compelling evidence for certain serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes. All such retrials must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal.[29]

On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. Twice he was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[30][31][32] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and raping her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[33]
On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being found not guilty of the same offence, that of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995. Weston's first trial was in 1996, when the jury found him not guilty. Following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009 – Thompson's blood on Weston's boots – Weston was arrested in 2009 and tried for a second time in December 2010, when he was found guilty of Thompson's murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment to serve a minimum of 13 years

I think its good because it shows you can run, but you cant hide and the law will bring justice to you eventually! Whats not fair is the deceased family knowing that someone killed a member of their family and that they are walking free! Some people (lunatics of course) would be willing to take the law into their own hands to see that justice is done!..obviously i disagree with that but i can understand it.

But joint enterprise just doesnt sit right with me! to much room for gross miscarriage of justice

johnnyskeleton

What's unfair is that a criminal trial is very stressful an prosecution authorities are competent and supposedly well resourced. This means they have to get it right first time and can't just come back any time to have another stab at it whenever they feel like it.

Otherwise the prosecution could drip feed new evidence or look for a spurious piece of "new" evidence to reopen everything. Remeber that an accused can appeal on a point of law or for a declaration of a miscarriage of justice. They, unlike the dpp don't have the right to unlimited jury trials until they get the right result.

Ned_led16

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What I find interesting is that Dobson has been acquitted but is now being tried based on legislation passed in 2003 in the UK to permit retrials where new evidence comes to light. Unlike the Irish law of a similar nature passed last year, it applies retrospectively to trials prior to its enactment.

This seems very unfair to me that someone already acquitted should be tried again. I wonder, is the retrial limited only to the "new" evidence which has emerged i.e. does the jury have to make its decision based only on the new forensic science evidence?

I think they take all the evidence into accountxc, except if they believe the forensic evidence was contaminated, then the Judge stated the Jury must ignore the covert video surveillance taken in the flat. For some reason.........

If they are convicted, could the Mothers be charged with perjury for giving the false alibi that they were at home all night.... Its not possible be in two places at once. Its wrong of course, but i can see how a Mother would lie on the stand to save their son from life imprsionment.

The surprising thing is that the Accourts were under surveillance and were allowed to leave their house with black bin liners without being stopped and searched.... Most likely disposing of all the clothing they were wearing on the night.

If you are a legal representative is it best to advise your client to give any credible excuse to any allegation of evidence or provide them with an excuse... (surely thats ilegal)?