Joint Enterprise

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, along with the whole House I welcome you back to the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on securing this debate and thank Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I draw the attention of the House to my outside interests as set out in the register.

We are holding this debate today because we know that thousands of people have been prosecuted under joint enterprise over the last decade alone, and we have a profound fear that some of these convictions are unsound. I am deeply conscious that behind each of these crimes lies a victim, usually murdered, with grieving loved ones whose lives have been changed for ever and ruined. My heart goes out to all those and their families who have suffered in that way. But we also know that there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that joint enterprise has both convicted people in error and wholly disproportionately affected those who identify as black, Asian and minority ethnic.

Young people from ethnic communities have been, essentially, hoovered up for peripheral and in some cases even non-existent involvement in serious criminal acts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jogee has established that the previous interpretation of the law was wrong and confirmed the abolition of what I am advised lawyers call parasitic accessory liability, to which the hon. Lady referred. But to date only a very limited number of joint enterprise convictions have been quashed.

To find a defendant guilty of a criminal offence, a jury must be satisfied that a defendant both committed the crime and had the requisite state of mind to carry out the crime. Yet the law on joint enterprise, and secondary liability more generally, was developed by the courts to ensure that all participants in a criminal enterprise could be held accountable. Indeed, it has been a key tool when prosecuting suspected gang members. But there has been a failure by our criminal justice system to distinguish between gangs and groups. The House will understand that not all members of groups have a criminal purpose. Not all members of gangs or groups join in when there is an incident. Humans are by nature social animals. People naturally hang around in groups or sports teams or protest marches. That does not mean, if an incident occurs, that everyone in the group intended whatever happened to happen.

We now have evidence of how discriminatory the law of joint enterprise has been, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on the work he did in revealing the unequal treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Over recent years, I have worked with Matilda MacAttram, of Black Mental Health, who has done so much good work exposing the inadequacies of the criminal justice and legal system in this respect. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister who, as Home Secretary, ensured that the voice of Black Mental Health was heard in Government.

It is no accident that the bulk of the prison population convicted under a joint enterprise doctrine is young BAME men. It is an uneasy and difficult truth that an association might exist unconsciously or otherwise in the minds of the police, prosecutors and juries between being a young ethnic minority male and being in a gang, and therefore being involved in forms of urban violence. Such findings are echoed by studies of the ethnic profile of prisoners convicted on the basis of joint enterprise. One study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies found that, for young people convicted under joint enterprise, nearly 60% were BAME.

There is now a real suspicion that justice has miscarried in many joint enterprise cases. Juries were not directed on the correct law, even in the most serious of cases. The high standards of legal accuracy we are entitled to expect of our justice system have simply not been met. In such cases, we rightly expect the appeal system to function and to function effectively.

Even as recently as 2017, prosecutors were still trying to find an easy way to convict, as was shown by the case of Lewis. Thankfully, the judge found there was no case to answer. The prosecution appealed that ruling and rightly lost. There is now a logjam in our criminal justice system, with the Court of Appeal appearing wrongly to block appeals by joint enterprise prisoners. The burden of the substantial injustice test, to which I have referred, has been passed on to the prisoner, which requires the person convicted to satisfy the Court of Appeal that

“he would not have been convicted had the jury been directed on the basis of the corrected law as set out in Jogee.”

Instead, the question should be, “Is there a realistic possibility that he would not have been convicted?”, which I understand has legal precedence and which was the test previously applied in the case of McInnes v. Her Majesty’s Advocate.

Along with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), to whom I pay tribute, I visited Alex Henry in prison in Cambridgeshire. Shortly after his conviction for joint enterprise murder, he was diagnosed with autism. I have taken a close interest in his case over the past two years and think it one of immense concern. As we have learned in recent weeks, the police and Crown Prosecution Service are often difficult to deal with in respect of disclosure. Parliament needs to reconsider the proper approach and the relevant sanctions. The evidence available to a prosecutor is now more comprehensive, with CCTV and phones, which in theory makes it easier to distinguish between those who join in and those who do not. Recent cases of alleged sexual offending have demonstrated the consequences when disclosure is not properly dealt with.

The right to a fair trial is a basic human right. I worry that, in respect of these cases, our courts are too keen to block appeals by those who might have been convicted by error of the courts. Such behaviour serves only to undermine our faith in the justice system. There is a tendency in Britain to believe that we have the best criminal justice system in the world. I put it to the House that our attitude to the British crime and justice system is riddled with a complacency that is wholly unjustified. That view would be borne out by any fair-minded person who focused on joint enterprise.

The whole House should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham for his recent report, delivered at the Government’s request, on the legal system’s treatment of black, Asian and ethnic minorities in Britain. Quite apart from the right hon. Gentleman, there are many in the legal profession who argue that it is simply unacceptable that today, in 2018, virtually all senior members of the judiciary are white men from privileged backgrounds. That simply does not reflect the society that is Britain today and which the judiciary serve.

We should not forget that all too often in Britain, injustice is remedied not by the organs of the state but by the investigative prowess of a free media or, indeed, by Members of the House. Who can forget that the manifest injustice done to the Birmingham Six was remedied not by the police or the state, but by the indefatigable work of two Members of the House: Sir John Farr, the then Conservative Member for Harborough, and Chris Mullin, the then Labour Member for Sunderland South and subsequently a distinguished Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and a development Minister? Today, the poor families of the victims of that outrage have still not achieved closure, as the ongoing coroner’s inquiry in Birmingham demonstrates.

I hope that, following this debate, the media will take a close interest in the cases in which joint enterprise might have led to innocent people being convicted. JENGbA, the organisation formed in 2010 to which the hon. Member for Manchester Central rightly referred, now supports more than 800 prisoners, many of whom are serving mandatory life sentences of 22 years, and the youngest of whom was just 12 when charged. I hope that the Justice Committee, with its considerable authority—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is in his place—will not allow these matters to rest until they have been fully examined by Parliament, so that we can be assured that justice has been delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

There are a number of areas where changes are needed. I have great respect for the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but I am conscious that it is under pressure both in terms of resource and of its terms of reference. It would not be unreasonable to look at that. Miscarriages of justice do occur. I know that full well because I vividly remember prosecuting one once—not in a murder case, but in a rape case. At the time, the evidence and the legal test appeared compelling, but, thanks to the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, evidence came to light, and I had no hesitation in not seeking to resist the appeal when it came to the Court of Appeal a second time. Its work, therefore, is really important. It is also important that it has the means to carry out its vital job, as its role is a significant one. However, there are other gaps that we must look at as well.

Everybody accepts now that there was a serious departure from good reasoning in the case of Chan Wing-Siu in Privy Council back in 1985. When one reads the case, the odd thing is that the judgment, which was described as “taking a wrong turn” in the Supreme Court, was, actually, almost not based on the principal facts or arguments that had brought the appeal to start with. The noble Lord, the member of the Privy Council, giving the judgment in that case rather went off on a tangent and developed what was then regarded as the concept of secondary parasitic accessory liability.

The matter could have been resolved perfectly well on the facts of its own case. It is set out very well in what is a very detailed judgment of a strongly constituted Supreme Court in the Jogee case. I certainly do not fault the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jogee at all. It is exceedingly well-reasoned, and it is significant that not only the then President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, but the current President, the then deputy president, Baroness Hale, were there. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, took the unusual step of sitting in the Supreme Court because of his experience in criminal justice matters. Intellectually, the Supreme Court in Jogee got the answer right and said that the approach, which had encompassed so many people into secondary liability in homicide offences, was wrong. However, some practical errors remain in its application.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is a lawyer, so can he explain to me, as a layman, why, following this extremely well-written judgment on Jogee, which I have also read, the criminal justice system did not react with enormous alarm and immediately set in train reviewing the very large number of cases affected by that judgment?

[Robert Neill]

That brings me to my next point. There is a concern that, in practice, the filter effect that has been put to the bringing of appeals out of time and the way that it has been interpreted in cases such as Anwar and others has been particularly restrictive. That is the difficulty. It is very clear that the Court of Appeal in the Anwar case and subsequent cases has taken a very narrow interpretation of the substantial injustice point. That does not necessarily have to be the case on the basis of Jogee, but it was always made very clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that one should not assume that the Jogee case would mean that every conviction for murder on the basis of joint enterprise should be overturned, or that in many cases, even where convictions for murder were overturned, there would not also be a conviction for manslaughter, where appropriate, but the level of foresight and involvement was less. That is the important point that we have to consider.

None the less, it is really important that we get to a situation in which people are convicted, certainly, of offences where they have done wrong, but they should be convicted of and sentenced for offences that properly reflect the level of culpability of their behaviour. When we do not get that right, confidence in the system is understandably undermined. That is my concern, which is shared by the Members who have already spoken, about the difficulty of bringing cases out of time to the Court of Appeal. Clearly, it is something that needs to be looked at. If the rule of precedent makes it difficult for a court to do that, perhaps Parliament and Government should indeed consider it.

I just observe in passing that there is, in any event, the proviso to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which would mean that if, once the case has been heard, no material injustice occurred, the conviction can be upheld. At the moment, we have a double test: a test to bring the appeal out of time; and then the proviso. The difference is that, in the test to bring the appeal out of time, the onus is on the appellant to meet that test, whereas, under the Criminal Appeal Act, the test in relation to the proviso puts the onus on the prosecution. That is something that needs to be considered.

When the Justice Committee looked at this matter with some care in evidence sessions in the last Parliament, the view was that it had to be seen in the context of a very unsatisfactory state of the whole law of homicide. The distinction between murder and manslaughter remains extremely unclear in this country. Unfortunately, the Government have not so far taken up the opportunity of examining that. The logical route would be to ask the Law Commission to carry out such an examination.

In evidence to the Justice Committee in the last Parliament, Professor David Ormerod, a former chair of the Law Commission, a senior commissioner for criminal law and a distinguished academic Queen’s Counsel in criminal law matters, identified exactly that point. He said that a review of the law of homicide still represents the

“best solution”

that

“could encompass the decision in Jogee.”

It would enable us, thereafter, to encompass the consequences that stemmed from it. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision, he said that

“they are constrained, as ever in the common law, by the facts of the case and the nature of the argument.”

That is our common law system. He went on:

“It was not possible for them to offer a comprehensive review of the whole of the law relating to secondary liability, which the Law Commission could do”.

One of my asks of the Government, as well as revisiting the test for bringing the appeals out of time, is to take up the Law Commission’s willingness to examine that area. There is vast expertise in the Law Commission, which is sometimes under-used. It can look at the matter dispassionately and set the difficulty that we have with secondary liability in these cases into the broader difficulties that we have with the law of manslaughter. We heard compelling evidence from criminal practitioners, representatives of the Criminal Bar Association, about the real difficulty and complexity of giving direction to juries in manslaughter cases.

Judges have given most careful directions, after discussions with counsel on both sides, but none the less they frequently find juries returning and sending a note seeking further clarification. The greater the lack of clarity, the greater the risk of injustice. I hope that issue can be resolved. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to her post, that that would be a sensible and measured approach to find an intellectually sound way forward on this intractable issue.

The other matter that I would like the Minister to consider is the review of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, which the Justice Committee has taken evidence on. The fact that the review is taking place is welcome. The hon. Member for Manchester Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the disproportionate impact that the use of prosecutions using joint enterprise has on certain communities.

The fact is that a doctrine developed some 300 years ago still has effects on the social life of 21st century Britain, and those effects are very different from what Lord Hale described in his “History of the Pleas of the Crown” in about 1670. We need to have a means of applying that prosecutorial tool in a way that reflects modern society.

I hope that the public interest element of the Attorney General’s guidelines can be strengthened to consider the appropriateness of using this tool in the way we have discussed, given the impact on certain communities within the United Kingdom. I hope that those are constructive suggestions that we can take forward from this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating it time today.

I represent some of the family of Alex Henry, whose case was explained in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Alex Henry was involved in a fatal street fight in Ealing in 2013, and has spent four years in prison, serving 19 years under joint enterprise. His mother, Sally Halsall, is my constituent, and last October I met her and Alex’s sister, Charlotte, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I really came to understand the importance and significance of joint enterprise, and the need to review the law.

In August 2013 Alex Henry went shopping with three friends. A confrontation took place that lasted just over 40 seconds. It is not clear why the confrontation took place, but it may have been triggered by a stare. One young man used a knife from within a bag, and he stabbed two brothers, one of whom tragically lost his life. On the sixth day of the trial, the man with the knife pleaded guilty to murder and grievous bodily harm with intent, and was sentenced to 22 years. Alex Henry received a sentence of 19 years—only four years less—despite never touching the knife or even being aware of its existence.

Since Alex’s conviction in March 2014, his family have campaigned tirelessly with JENGbA to reform the law of joint enterprise. The injustice, as the family saw it, was that traditionally, for someone to be found guilty of murder the Crown needed to prove that the defendant inflicted fatal harm while intending to kill, or at least to commit very serious harm. Conversely, under joint enterprise the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility that the crime “might” happen, rather than that they intended it and knew that it “would” happen. This means that it is easier to prove the guilt of the accessory than the principal offender. Therefore, in Alex’s case the Crown needed to prove that Alex foresaw the possibility that the stabbing “might” happen, rather than that he intended and knew that it “would” happen.

There was no evidence that Alex knew about the possession of the knife and therefore that someone might be stabbed. However, the Crown persuaded the jury by arguing that “friends tell each other everything”, and therefore that Alex must have known the other man was in possession of a knife that day, and foreseen the possibility of its use if any altercations were to arise during the shopping trip. “Friends tell each other everything and therefore the crime could have been foreseen”—what a shocking indictment of the way the law works if that can lock up a young man for so long.

As we have heard, in February 2016 the joint enterprise law was successfully reformed. Now, rather than foresight, the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted the principal offender while knowing that the crime “would” take place. The law of joint enterprise has convicted thousands of men, women and children, 800 of whom are supported by JENGbA. However, the courts have ruled that the change in the law will have no automatic retrospective effect for out-of-time appeals, which include every case resulting in conviction 28 days or more before the change in the law. Instead, those out-of-time appeals will be allowed only if a defendant can prove a substantial injustice, which means proving that the change in law would, without doubt, have made a difference.

However, that is an impossible test, as was found in the case of Regina v. Anwar in 2016. The evidential bar has not been raised by Jogee; in particular, presence at the scene of the offence can amount to encouragement of the crime. Moreover, proof of the defendant’s intent to encourage, coupled with his knowledge that the crime would happen, can be inferred from the friendship of the co-defendants, just as foresight was inferred before Jogee.

If nothing more need be shown evidentially since the change in the law, how can a defendant prove that the change in the law would have made a difference? In comparison, those who have suffered a misapplication of the law changed in Jogee need to show only within 28 days of conviction that the conviction is unsafe, in that the misdirection might have made a difference. So far, no out-of-time case has succeeded on appeal—including Alex’s appeal, which was rejected.

In his excellent report on black and minority ethnic people in the justice system, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who is no longer in his place, rightly shone a light on unacceptable inequality, particularly for young people from those communities. But two other factors are particularly relevant to joint enterprise. First, there is maturity. Many convicted under joint enterprise are not in full maturity; the justice system is beginning, slowly, to understand that young men under 25 are not mature and need to be considered slightly differently—their maturity must be a factor in their cases.

The other factor is the autism spectrum. Alex Henry’s diagnosis of autism was important in his case. Despite Alex’s having had many problems from an early age, no one had suggested to him or his family that he might be on the autistic spectrum until a viewer of the documentary made about the case wrote to the family. Alex’s family then arranged for Alex to be assessed by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, the leading academic on autism and Asperger’s syndrome in this country.

The professor’s report states that it is incredibly unlikely that Alex could have foreseen what would or might happen in those 40 seconds since, due to his autism, he cannot predict the actions, behaviours or intentions of others. The Court of Appeal rejected that ground because Alex’s mother has a PhD in psychology and so she could have coached Alex in “how to act autistic”. That is shocking. The court also said that it could not understand why Alex was diagnosed so late in life, aged 23, despite seven previous mental health assessments, which did not result in a diagnosis.

[Mr Mitchell]

I want to strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying about the judgment of the court in that case in respect of autism. I have read the case and, as a layman, I find the response of the court completely inexplicable.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much. Anybody who has had any contact with people who have been diagnosed with autism at a later stage knows that the condition is often not diagnosed early. Many people go though many difficulties in their lives before being diagnosed, if at all. Alex was one of those in that unlucky situation. Because autism is an invisible disorder, many assessments found traits of autism as highlighted in Professor Baron-Cohen’s report. That could be a factor in appeals.

The refusal of Alex’s appeal has left the family devastated, as the House can imagine, but they are determined to see him proved innocent. In their view—and mine, from what I know of the case—he is not a murderer. How many people in prison for joint enterprise have undiagnosed autism? We need to look at that.

Since Alex’s appeal was rejected last year, his sister Charlotte has applied to challenge the “substantial injustice” at the Supreme Court. The family are also taking Alex’s case to the European Court of Human Rights. They believe that joint enterprise breached article 7 of the European convention on human rights and the principle of legality that holds that there shall be no punishment without law. Since those convicted under joint enterprise were not actually convicted under a true law, their presumption of innocence under article 6(2) remains, and it is breached by the need to prove that the change in the law would have made a difference.

In October 2016, the Select Committee on Justice, on which I have the pleasure and honour of serving, wrote to the chair of the Law Commission to suggest that it review the law of joint enterprise, given the lack of legal clarity in the wake of the Jogee judgement—particularly on how juries should be directed on the question of intention. Unfortunately, the final version of the 13th programme of reform omits any work on joint enterprise. I know, however, that the Justice Committee’s Chair will continue to push those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to JENGbA on its highlighting of concerns about this law for many years, which contributed to the 2016 Supreme Court ruling that the law had taken a wrong turn.

We have heard many excellent and passionate speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central spoke eloquently and comprehensively about the issues. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about the family of a victim and their suffering, and also about miscarriages of justice, making the important point that we must distinguish between groups and gangs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) rightly said that the victims’ families must not be ignored, but that miscarriages of justice must also be dealt with. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the need for hon. Members to press the Government on legal reforms, and the importance of charges and sentences being correct and proportionate to the acts carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) contributed with his characteristically passionate oratorical skill, and talked about his constituent Alex Henry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I must also compliment my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), on the points he made, specifically on the guidance for the prosecutors involved in making decisions on what charges should follow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made a powerful speech about how this law has been applied in practice in certain situations.

The law regarding joint liability is complex. In 2012, the Justice Committee—when I was a member—carried out an inquiry into the operation of the legal doctrine of joint enterprise. In 2014, it revisited the issue to see what had occurred. Both reports deal with the status and application of the law before the Jogee case reached the Supreme Court, where judgment was handed down in February 2016. Although the reports predate this important judgment, much of their background information and analysis remain useful. The Committee explained that joint enterprise is a form of secondary liability whereby a person who agrees to commit a crime with another becomes liable for all criminal acts committed by the other person—the principal offender—in their joint criminal venture. The Committee suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should issue guidance on the use of the doctrine when charging. In particular, it wanted guidance on the relationship between association and complicity. I will return to the issue of the clarity of the law shortly, as it remains a concern of many Members even after the Jogee ruling.

Victims of crime are at the centre of Labour’s approach to justice. Victims, their families and the wider public must have faith in our justice system, and to achieve that our justice system must deliver certainty. Labour is also clear that, where there are substantial injustices arising from the application of the law of joint enterprise before the case of Jogee, these should be addressed.

Jogee is reasonably described as a landmark court judgment. It established that the law on joint enterprise had been misinterpreted in the criminal courts for three decades. The ruling turned on the judgment that an individual foreseeing a possible crime does not equate to “automatic authorisation” of it, as the law had been interpreted in previous cases. A higher threshold of proof is now required as a result.

It is welcome that the Supreme Court clarified the application of the law of joint enterprise. The judgment also set out criteria by which potential miscarriages of justice can be addressed where a substantial injustice has occurred.

Subsequent judgments following the Supreme Court ruling relating to joint enterprise appeals have developed the argument around the nature of the substantial injustice. Judgments in joint enterprise cases since Jogee have explained why the law must provide certainty.

It is clearly in the public interest that convictions are not automatically reopened when judges in later cases develop the law. To reopen all cases would undermine the certainty of convictions and deny closure to victims’ families. In the Court of Appeal case of Johnson, it was stated:

“The need to establish substantial injustice results from the wider public interest in legal certainty and the finality of decisions made in accordance with the then clearly established law…It also takes into account the interests of the victim (or the victim’s family), particularly in cases where death has resulted and closure is particularly important.”

Labour is clear that victims of crime and their families must have confidence in our justice system. However, it is also vital that victims of miscarriages of justice have opportunities to have their cases heard. Without those opportunities, we would risk injustices being permitted to continue.

Those who believe that miscarriages of justice have been committed are of the opinion that how “substantial injustice” is defined has not yet been fully developed. It is right that more clarity is brought to this vital question, and we hope that today’s debate has contributed to that. In addition, we welcome the news that the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing its guidelines and we hope that this opportunity will be taken to help provide more certainty and clarity for both victims and the wider public.

Many members of the public will be surprised to know that no official statistics are available on joint enterprise convictions. That can make it difficult to assess how big an impact the wrong turning in the law between the cases of Chan and Jogee has had in practice.

Almost two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many people had been convicted under joint enterprise in each year since 2010, and a similar request was made by the Justice Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament. The Government response was that the information was not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. That is a plainly unsatisfactory response to a very reasonable request for information that would shed light on the scale of joint enterprise convictions. May I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government take action to rectify this urgently? There is a need to keep proper statistics on offences of joint enterprise; that would greatly assist everyone.

Although there are no official statistics, the evidence that there is from academic research suggests that the doctrine of joint enterprise may have been applied in a discriminatory way. Where such profiling does exist, it shows that the doctrine is not only unjust but undermines the social contract and community support for our criminal justice system.

In its 2014 report on joint enterprise, the Justice Committee explained:

“It is clear that a large proportion of those convicted of joint enterprise offences are young Black and mixed race men. In the Cambridge research sample, 37.2% of those serving very long sentences for joint enterprise offences are Black/Black British, eleven times the proportion of Black/Black British people in the general population and almost three times as many as in the overall prison population. There is also a much higher proportion of mixed race prisoners convicted of joint enterprise offences than there are in the general prison population (15.5% compared to 3.9%).”

The Justice Committee also heard evidence about why there was disproportionality:

“Dr Ben Crewe from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology said that there were probably two main reasons for the disproportionate impact of joint enterprise on young Black men, the first being that ‘BME men may be over-represented in the kinds of communities where young men typically hang around in groups that are labelled by outsiders as gangs’ and the second that ‘an association may exist unconsciously in the minds of the police, prosecutors and juries between being a young ethnic minority male and being in a gang, and therefore being involved in forms of urban violence.’”

Many Members today have alluded to that point.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham for his work in the Lammy review. It states:

“Despite the High Court ruling, experts in the field remain concerned about some of the legal practice on Joint Enterprise. Many are not convinced that the line between ‘prohibitive’ and ‘prejudicial’ information is drawn appropriately in the evidence put before juries when cases reach trial. People must be tried on the basis of evidence about their actions, not their associations—and the evidence put before juries must reflect this.”

This again demonstrates the clear need to publish accurate statistics on offences of joint enterprise. We ask the CPS to take this opportunity to rework its guidance on joint enterprise and to consider its approach, so that this and associated laws are not implemented in a discriminatory way and so that, when prosecutors are deciding the appropriateness of the charge and who needs to be prosecuted, this guidance is applied properly and fairly. I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to do that today.

[Mr Mitchell]

It was unforgivably remiss of me earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) to her first outing on the Government Front Bench. The whole House will wish her well in what will undoubtedly be the start of a long and distinguished ministerial career.