FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Joint Enterprise
Joint Enterprise
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
I watched the drama "Common" last night and I'm watching the documentary "Guilty by Association" this evening.
I met some mothers last year fighting a case to overturn the joint enterprise convictions of their sons.
What do you think of people (largely young men) all being convicted of the same crime by association?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
saw the drama last night also..
does seem to be a knee jerk catch all piece of legislation however can also see the problems whereby a group are involved and all stay schtum..
does the same proviso apply to cases eg. financial crimes, the recent inter bank lending rate etc..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"saw the drama last night also..
does seem to be a knee jerk catch all piece of legislation however can also see the problems whereby a group are involved and all stay schtum..
does the same proviso apply to cases eg. financial crimes, the recent inter bank lending rate etc..? "
Or phone hackers?
This is a really difficult one for me as I too can see how it could be used when nothing else is available. However, it also seems counter-intuitive for our criminal justice.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I seem to remember a case in the last couple of weeks where a group of Lads got put away for murder because it couldnt be decided who actually committed the act which i found a bit worrying.
Gimp |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"saw the drama last night also..
does seem to be a knee jerk catch all piece of legislation however can also see the problems whereby a group are involved and all stay schtum..
does the same proviso apply to cases eg. financial crimes, the recent inter bank lending rate etc..?
Or phone hackers?
This is a really difficult one for me as I too can see how it could be used when nothing else is available. However, it also seems counter-intuitive for our criminal justice.
"
good point about the hacking..
agree with what your saying its a difficult one.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The programme did an excellent job in highlighting the grey areas within the law.
Primarily introduced for cases where more than one attacker was involved and the cause of death could not be specifically linked to an individual. Or, if say the attacker was goaded or encouraged by an onlooker. Amongst others
As with many laws there are many grey areas and interpretations.
Will catch the doc on iPlayer as i forgot all about it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"The programme did an excellent job in highlighting the grey areas within the law.
Primarily introduced for cases where more than one attacker was involved and the cause of death could not be specifically linked to an individual. Or, if say the attacker was goaded or encouraged by an onlooker. Amongst others
As with many laws there are many grey areas and interpretations.
Will catch the doc on iPlayer as i forgot all about it!"
It is worth watching.
Newsnight has a special discussion piece on this tomorrow evening I think.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
I was reading into joint enterprise last year with work and found it an interesting part of law. There was quite a tricky question based on it in the exam.
It's definitely a grey area and the amount of hoops people had to jump through to withdraw from a joint enterprise at the various stages was rather fascinating.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The programme did an excellent job in highlighting the grey areas within the law.
Primarily introduced for cases where more than one attacker was involved and the cause of death could not be specifically linked to an individual. Or, if say the attacker was goaded or encouraged by an onlooker. Amongst others
As with many laws there are many grey areas and interpretations.
Will catch the doc on iPlayer as i forgot all about it!
It is worth watching.
Newsnight has a special discussion piece on this tomorrow evening I think.
"
Thanks for the tip. Newsnight is set to record 
hopefully it's on iPlayer tonight, I'm intrigued |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I was reading into joint enterprise last year with work and found it an interesting part of law. There was quite a tricky question based on it in the exam.
It's definitely a grey area and the amount of hoops people had to jump through to withdraw from a joint enterprise at the various stages was rather fascinating. "
When I was "studying" law 30 years ago it was barely covered as it had hardly been used in the previous 30 years. How times change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
"
When I was "studying" law 30 years ago it was barely covered as it had hardly been used in the previous 30 years. How times change.
"
Laws a funny beast. So much of it is from time immemorial, but there is a lot of change, too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"
When I was "studying" law 30 years ago it was barely covered as it had hardly been used in the previous 30 years. How times change.
Laws a funny beast. So much of it is from time immemorial, but there is a lot of change, too. "
As was pointed out, this is 300 year old law.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"They should show Let Him Have It. That was joint enterprise in the '50's if i remember rightly"
The Bentley case? That focused on him being a bit older and goading the shooting with the infamous "let him have it" cry. I hadn't thought of it as joint enterprise. I'm going to have to do some reading up now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It has its place and has its flaws.
I recall the case of a young student being dragged off his pushbike and kicked to death for protecting his rucksack. They could prove all 4-5 lads were there. They could prove a couple of them had kicked the guy causing non-fatal injuries. They could not prove which one smashed his head to a pulp on the pavement and which stood watching. In such cases, do the fucking lot of them for the murder... no pissing about working out which are accessories, which just assaulted him and then stopped or which just stomped on his bike.
If people walk around knowing their mate is carrying a gun, who goes on to use it in their presence... and then the lot of them all keep schtum as to which one had the gun and which one used it..... yeah do the lot of them for the most serious crime.
It's difficult though when used to deter gang activity, sometimes it will get the right people and deter others from thinking their is safety in silent numbers.... the problem with that is the 'sometimes'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They should show Let Him Have It. That was joint enterprise in the '50's if i remember rightly
The Bentley case? That focused on him being a bit older and goading the shooting with the infamous "let him have it" cry. I hadn't thought of it as joint enterprise. I'm going to have to do some reading up now.
"
You're right on the age thing but I'm sure he was tried under joint enterprise. I might be wrong though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is a massive grey area. And I'm sure there are some injustices in the UK, however if you are knowingly involving yourself with others who commit crimes then why is it such a surprise when the "innocent" get arrested, especially when not giving the real perpetrator up. Everyone has a choice at the end of the day, some decisions are obviously easy than others. But these young men and to an extent parents should and need to take responsibility for decisions and actions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"They should show Let Him Have It. That was joint enterprise in the '50's if i remember rightly
The Bentley case? That focused on him being a bit older and goading the shooting with the infamous "let him have it" cry. I hadn't thought of it as joint enterprise. I'm going to have to do some reading up now.
You're right on the age thing but I'm sure he was tried under joint enterprise. I might be wrong though"
You are right. I've just read the wiki entry (too late for anything heavier). Although with his mental age being so low this is one of those difficult cases.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It has its place and has its flaws.
I recall the case of a young student being dragged off his pushbike and kicked to death for protecting his rucksack. They could prove all 4-5 lads were there. They could prove a couple of them had kicked the guy causing non-fatal injuries. They could not prove which one smashed his head to a pulp on the pavement and which stood watching. In such cases, do the fucking lot of them for the murder... no pissing about working out which are accessories, which just assaulted him and then stopped or which just stomped on his bike.
If people walk around knowing their mate is carrying a gun, who goes on to use it in their presence... and then the lot of them all keep schtum as to which one had the gun and which one used it..... yeah do the lot of them for the most serious crime.
It's difficult though when used to deter gang activity, sometimes it will get the right people and deter others from thinking their is safety in silent numbers.... the problem with that is the 'sometimes'."
I remember that one! Was horrific.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The British 'justice system' is a load of cobblers. I now have NO FAITH IN THE SYSTEM WHATSOEVER.
If you have complaints made to the local plod by a group of blokes who claimed you assaulted them on a night out, and then they blame you and collude in their statements, you would think that even the most half-witted of magistrates should be able to see through their lies (not that it should ever have come to court as the CPS should have ed it out, but then again they're a bunch of self-serving tossers who just pick and choose cases they think they can get a result on).
One person, assaulting four guys built like brick outhouses at the same time, I don't think so somehow.
Anyway, if I ever see someone, even a copper, getting battered in the street in the future, I'm not going to be going to assist in case I get charged with assault by someone, as this incident described above all happened to a cousin of mine, and now he has a criminal record for something he didn't do.
Up until this incident I had a degree of respect for the law and the system (believing that the truth would prevail), but now I realise that it's a case of whatever the system wants to do to you, it can.
He could have appealed the verdict, but this would have meant going to Crown Court and risking a far greater sentence. And if the system can get it SO wrong through the magistrates court, then why risk doubling the potential sentence at Crown Court.
British justice...it's dead in the water.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"The British 'justice system' is a load of cobblers. I now have NO FAITH IN THE SYSTEM WHATSOEVER.
If you have complaints made to the local plod by a group of blokes who claimed you assaulted them on a night out, and then they blame you and collude in their statements, you would think that even the most half-witted of magistrates should be able to see through their lies (not that it should ever have come to court as the CPS should have ed it out, but then again they're a bunch of self-serving tossers who just pick and choose cases they think they can get a result on).
One person, assaulting four guys built like brick outhouses at the same time, I don't think so somehow.
Anyway, if I ever see someone, even a copper, getting battered in the street in the future, I'm not going to be going to assist in case I get charged with assault by someone, as this incident described above all happened to a cousin of mine, and now he has a criminal record for something he didn't do.
Up until this incident I had a degree of respect for the law and the system (believing that the truth would prevail), but now I realise that it's a case of whatever the system wants to do to you, it can.
He could have appealed the verdict, but this would have meant going to Crown Court and risking a far greater sentence. And if the system can get it SO wrong through the magistrates court, then why risk doubling the potential sentence at Crown Court.
British justice...it's dead in the water.
"
Was that a joint enterprise conviction? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Joint enterprise by the four bastards who fitted him up through lies and collusion. If the tables had been turned though, the four would have been in the position of joint enterprise that night.
Justice will be served, one at a time... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I seem to remember a case in the last couple of weeks where a group of Lads got put away for murder because it couldnt be decided who actually committed the act which i found a bit worrying.
Gimp"
would you have found it worrying if it had been your wife in the morgue ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My wife is in the morgue ! Now you tell me
By association sounds light weight. I think legally there needs to be evidence of compliance leading to the crime. Did read a thought provoking account of a Mother where the son was convicted but not the murderer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Newsnight discussion was not as crisp and punchy as I hoped for. It didn't advance the debate that had already been covered in the documentary the night before.
"
Balls! Forgot it and failed to record! iPlayer it is again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"The Newsnight discussion was not as crisp and punchy as I hoped for. It didn't advance the debate that had already been covered in the documentary the night before.
Balls! Forgot it and failed to record! iPlayer it is again "
I can't do it all for you! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Newsnight discussion was not as crisp and punchy as I hoped for. It didn't advance the debate that had already been covered in the documentary the night before.
Balls! Forgot it and failed to record! iPlayer it is again
I can't do it all for you!"
I did watch the documentary though, which was really well done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
