Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson]

I can confirm that the party will be looking at this Bill when we are in power and when we get rid of—well, when we are in power.

It is possible both to uphold the law by providing powers to prosecute those who play a significant role in a crime and to prevent innocent people from going to jail. There is cross-party consensus that things need to change and that it is now up to Parliament to act. That is what this Bill seeks to do—no more, no less.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the campaign on joint enterprise is not about guilty people getting off, but about having a justice system that works for everyone? The Chair of the Justice Committee and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, and we believe that this is the biggest injustice in the criminal justice system. There is a growing feeling across the criminal justice system, including among senior judges, that the balance has to be got right.

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover some of those points in my speech. I hope that the Minister will listen closely to the arguments I put forward today and fully consider this opportunity to end this injustice, which has destroyed so many lives and places undue burdens on the courts, the prison system and the taxpayer.

As the Minister will know, joint enterprise is the centuries-old legal doctrine that was intended to give powers to prosecute people who were not the primary actor but nevertheless played a role in a crime, such as a getaway driver in a bank robbery. However, something has gone profoundly wrong in the way the law has been used for the past 40 years, as the Supreme Court recognised in the 2016 landmark case of Ameen Jogee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. That is what my Bill would do, by making a small change to the 1861 Act. During cross-party discussions with Ministers and shadow Ministers and at the Criminal Justice Bill Committee, I have yet to hear a persuasive argument put forward against this formula. I hope the Minister will agree that this wording is a common-sense approach that would keep the decision-making power with the jury, and perhaps strengthen the law by restoring its original intention, removing those current uncertainties that give rise to the miscarriages of justice that I have discussed today. Let me clarify that the Bill would cause no unintended consequences, or make it harder to punish people who have committed a crime, in line with the law as it is intended.

[Mr Sheerman]

One of the arguments that we hear time and again is, “Are you going to let the getaway driver get away with it?” Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill would not do that, and that there is no intention for it to do so? The Bill that she is introducing is fair and balanced. I was with a senior retired High Court judge last night who said that it was about time that we put this matter right.

[Kim Johnson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution; that is exactly what the Bill is intended to do.

To illustrate my point further, I shall turn to the 2010 Victoria station attack, which the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury, referred to in Tuesday’s debate at the Criminal Justice Bill Committee. In that incident, a group of young men chased and then attacked another young man, who was repeatedly stabbed and died. The coroner could not determine who had struck the fatal blow, so the whole group of assailants were put on trial and a number were convicted of murder and of manslaughter. They were clearly making a significant contribution to an awful crime.

Another commonly cited case is that of the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence. Again, there was damning evidence that the many accused did play an active and intentional role in his murder. My revised Bill would allow for their joint enterprise prosecutions. Another recent high-profile case concerns the murder of a young woman in Warrington. Both defendants were successfully, and correctly, prosecuted under joint enterprise.

My Bill is intentionally drafted to allow the use of joint enterprise laws in such cases to prosecute multiple defendants, where there was clearly evidence of a significant contribution by the accused to the death of the victim. It will be for the courts to decide in each case what constitutes a significant contribution, and it will form a basic legal test alongside many others used by juries to aid in their deliberations and protect against miscarriages of justice, while upholding the law as it is intended.

In response to the joint enterprise amendment on Tuesday, the Minister recognised the importance of the law on joint enterprise and the consequences that result from convictions on which both she and I find common ground. Ultimately, however, she was unable to support the new clause, saying:

“We think that it is too difficult to require the prosecution to prove a significant contribution”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 485.]

Following that, I was grateful to meet the Minister yesterday to discuss the issues raised at the Bill Committee regarding the language of “significant contribution”. She reiterated her concern that “significant contribution” could prove too difficult a legal test for the prosecution. In particular, she referenced cases where contribution to a crime is difficult to prove and where, with multiple assailants, it is impossible to tell who dealt the final blow that caused the death of the victim.

Although I recognise the Minister’s trepidation, I find that a disturbing and worrying argument that amounts to an admission that, within our legal system, there is an area where we do not believe it is necessary to prove that a person must have made a significant contribution to a crime before locking them up and throwing away the key—and, indeed, that the Government are content with this state of affairs. It removes the burden from the prosecution to prove guilt and instead places the burden on the defendant to prove innocence. No other area of our law reverses that principle, and I hope the Minister will clarify the Government position on that and reconsider.

I find it confusing that a 14-year-old stabs and kills a young girl in Liverpool, is charged with murder and sentenced to life to serve a minimum of 13 years, while the young men mentioned throughout my speech did not commit a crime yet have been issued life sentences. Joint enterprise allows the prosecution to use a racist gang narrative to imply guilt and persuade juries using prejudicial stereotypes in place of cold, hard evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on bringing this matter before the House. I believe she said at the start of her speech that she was as nervous as a kitten when she came out of the ballot with a high ranking. I do not think anybody would have recognised that, as she made a powerful case, and I commend her for that.

I rise to oppose the hon. Lady’s Bill and make the case that in many regards the law on joint enterprise does not go far enough. I will give some examples. I also want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that for those of us who believe that “life means life”, the cases that she mentioned undermined our argument; I do not think they do at all. When people say that life should mean life, they mean that they want honesty in sentencing and that the sentence handed down by the court is the one the person should serve. If we adopted that honesty in sentencing, many of the people that the hon. Lady mentioned in her speech would not be given a life sentence; they would be given a fixed tariff that they would be able to serve. Therefore, the honesty in sentencing that I want to see, as does my hon. Friend, judging by what he was saying, will help in the cases that the hon. Lady brought forward, because if we had that honesty in sentencing, we would not have these widespread life sentences being given out willy-nilly, which never in a million years mean life.

This is only a short Bill, but it has wide-ranging implications. It would repeal section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, which defines a secondary party. There are three types of joint enterprise. The first led to the creation of the 1861 Act in response to the case of the Crown v. Swindall and Osborne in 1846, which involved two cart drivers engaged in a race. One of them ran down and killed a pedestrian, but it was not known which cart and driver had perpetrated the fatal action. The court took the view that as both had equally encouraged each other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man, as they were both participating in the race, so both were held jointly liable for the death; this is about a situation where two or more people join in committing a single crime, in circumstances where they are, in effect, all joint principals. The case founded the principle that the parties must share a common purpose and make it clear to each other by their actions that they are acting on their common intention. Each individual assumes responsibility for the other members involved in the act. Therefore, a participant in an offence can be convicted even if the prosecution is unable to prove his or her precise role. It suffices that participation itself, whether as a principal offender or as a secondary party, can be proven and, as such, the principle of common purpose was codified in law in section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861. The codified offence reads:

“Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission…shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.”

The next landmark case, and second type of joint enterprise, cements the joint enterprise doctrine. In 1952, Derek Bentley was convicted for the shooting of a police officer. The actual murder was committed by an accomplice, Christopher Craig. Bentley was convicted after he said the famous words, “Let him have it,” which formed a key part of the evidence for the case against him, as he was deemed by the jury to be encouraging the defendant. Consequently, he was held jointly responsible for the murder. However, as we all know, the conviction was quashed on appeal.

In effect, that is an example of the principle of where D assists or encourages P to commit a single crime, which is the test used by the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed with a prosecution. Now, as we all know, for a jury to find someone guilty of a criminal offence, it must be satisfied that it is sure that the defendant both committed the crime, known as the actus reus, and had the requisite state of mind to carry out the crime, known as the mens rea.

An example is murder. To be convicted of murder, an offender must be shown both to have caused the victim’s death and to have either intended to kill or cause really serious harm. Another example is burglary. To be convicted of burglary under section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968, the defendant must be found both to have entered a building as a trespasser and at the time intended to commit theft or grievous bodily harm.

Joint enterprise relates to secondary liability, meaning that a conviction hinges on the court’s determination of what the offender could have reasonably foreseen or anticipated, rather than what was explicitly agreed upon or even intended. For example, if two people planned a burglary together, and one, with the full knowledge of the other, took a gun and shot somebody during the course of that burglary, that would be seen as a joint enterprise, as the person without the gun could be deemed to have been able to reasonably foresee that the gun could be used to cause actual bodily harm to a third party.

This is where the third type of joint enterprise comes in, and it is of particular relevance to the Bill we are dealing with today. Until the 1980s, it seems that there were two strands. The first, referred to as the conduct element, requires that the accessory had encouraged or assisted the principal to commit the offence, and the act of assistance or encouragement may be infinitely varied. The second is the mental element, which requires that the accessory had the intention to assist or encourage the commission of the crime in the knowledge of any existing facts necessary for the principal’s act to be criminal. If the crime required a particular intent, the accessory must have intended to assist or encourage the principal to act with such intent.

In 1985, we had the case of the Crown v. Chan Wing-Siu, which created a specific subset of secondary liability known as parasitical accessory liability—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside touched on these examples in her speech—which allowed not only the principal offender and accessory to be prosecuted for crime A, but also for a second crime, crime B, that the principal offender went on to commit. Here P and D participate together in one crime, crime A, and in the course of it P commits a second crime, crime B, which D had foreseen he might commit. This case lowered the burden of proof for the mental element of joint enterprise, as a conviction could now be made on the understanding that the defendant had only to foresee that the primary offender intended to commit the second crime.

Some people argue that a number of innocent victims who did not play a significant part in the offence could have been caught up in that definition, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, said. That possibility has attracted particular attention in murder cases, for which a life sentence is mandatory. In the words of the Justice Committee,

“the mandatory life sentence for those convicted of murder removes much judicial discretion to hand down appropriate sentences to secondary participants who may have played a minor role and may have had no intention that a murder or grievous bodily harm should take place.”

Tim Moloney KC and Simon Natas, an expert in criminal law, argued for the abandonment of that principle, as it can lower the threshold for conviction in some cases. They suggested that the prosecution often finds it easier to demonstrate that the defendant foresaw the actions of the principal offender than to prove that the defendant intended for serious harm or death to occur. However, in its 2007 report on aspects of secondary liability, the Law Commission acknowledged that the principle was “severe”, but recommended its retention with certain safeguards.

Crucially, secondary liability is a common-law doctrine arising from the cases that I have mentioned. According to evidence given on 1 November 2011 to the Justice Committee by Jeremy Horder, professor of criminal law at King’s College London and a former law commissioner, the rules on complicity were originally

“drawn up to accommodate the notion that people have different roles in the commission of an offence”,

and those rules have evolved over the years. In one of its reports on complicity, called “Participating in Crime”, the Law Commission commented that

“At the core of the doctrine of secondary liability is the notion that D can and should be convicted of the offence that P commits even though D has only ‘aided, abetted, counselled or procured’ P to commit the offence”.

The Justice Committee’s 2010 report highlighted that the offence of joint enterprise plays a large part in getting convictions for who aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence, even though the principal offender does not carry out the intended act. Professor Graham Virgo highlighted the inconsistency in the courts’ approach to determining the mental state required for a finding of joint enterprise: while some cases only require the secondary participant to foresee the commission of the offence, in others, the secondary participant must apparently foresee both the criminal offender’s state of mind and the criminal act.

In 2011, before I was on the Justice Committee, it held an inquiry on the common-law doctrine of joint enterprise. That inquiry was prompted by concerns expressed to the Committee that the complexity and opacity of the doctrine could be the cause of injustice, whether to victims and their families or to defendants. That report was reviewed in a short follow-up report published by the Committee in 2014-15. The Committee considered the law, criticism of the doctrine, the use of joint enterprise, its application in cases of murder and gang-related or group violence, and whether the doctrine should be enshrined in statute. The Committee’s final recommendation was that the doctrine should be enshrined in legislation; it stated that

“The lack of clarity over the common law doctrine on joint enterprise is unacceptable for such an important aspect of the criminal law.”

In the year following the Justice Committee’s follow-up report, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of R v. Jogee, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, mentioned, that the courts had taken a wrong turn in pursuing the concept of parasitic accessory liability. It handed down its judgment in February 2016, ruling that the previous interpretation of the law following the Chan Wing-Siu case was wrong, and that there should be no separate form of accessorial liability. It gave a correct example:

“D2 should not be liable for offence B unless he intended to assist or encourage D1 to offence B. Whether he did have such an intention or not will be for the jury to decide. The jury might consider D2’s foresight to be evidence of such an intent, but foresight would no longer be sufficient in and of itself.”

The judgment summarised as follows:

“The unanimous conclusion of the court is that Chan Wing-Siu and Powell and English did take a wrong turning…The correct rule is that foresight is simply evidence (albeit sometimes strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage, which is the proper mental element for establishing secondary liability.”

Effectively, as a result of the Supreme Court’s verdict, common law has already made the bar for prosecution higher again, as the mental element needed for prosecution is now not only being able to foresee a crime, but foresee a crime as evidence of intent. The Bill is clearly being introduced on the basis that despite that judgment, common law still sets the bar too low for the prosecution and, in some cases, leads to people on the fringes of a group being prosecuted when they are too remote from the murder to be charged with it.

The Bill seeks to reform part of the definition of joint enterprise and to add in reference to making a “significant contribution”. The liability on the basis of joint enterprise will then read, “Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall, by making a significant contribution to its commission, be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.”

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, mentioned the amendment tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill by, I think, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which, in effect, mirrored the measures in her Bill. I think—she did not make this clear—the amendment was withdrawn in Committee, but she will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

Reforming the legal definition of joint enterprise requires careful consideration of various factors, including principles of justice and fairness, and effectiveness in deterring criminal behaviour. Of course, the addition of “significant contribution” will be subject to legal interpretation. I asked the hon. Lady whether the leader of her party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), agreed with her Bill. I was not entirely clear from her answer whether he did—I think she said that he said he would look at it. I ask because as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, he has been invited in the past to give evidence to Select Committees in this House about joint enterprise, and it is fair to say that he was characteristically equivocal about whether he supported it. I was not entirely clear on his position after reading the evidence he gave, although he went on to say, and this is relevant to the debate,

“there needs to be some caution if there is any amendment to it, but…one can understand the concerns on either side.”

When asked whether he would regard it as a serious limitation on his ability to successfully prosecute culpable people of very serious crimes if he did not have the current joint enterprise routes to take, he said,

“Yes, I think it would be,”

so we should bear that in mind.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, mentioned the BBC drama “Common”, directed by the excellent Jimmy McGovern, who is a tremendous leader in his field. The programme follows 17-year-old Johnjo, who gives a lift to his cousin and his friends, only to find himself implicated in a stabbing. Johnjo sits in the car and does not even witness the stabbing, nor does he supply the knife. In fact, he apparently thought he was driving his cousin and friends to get a pizza.

The programme follows Johnjo and his family through the police and courts system and shows the devastating impact on the family. It was very powerful, as dramas are designed to be. The drama also shows the life-altering, axis-shifting impact on the victim’s family. Obviously, we should never forget that having a family member murdered is absolutely abhorrent, and I know that no one in the House would wish that on anyone; we have to take a balanced view on all these matters.

I take the view that joint enterprise works reasonably well at the moment. However, as I said at the start of my remarks, it has sometimes failed to get convictions where it should, rather than the other way around. Former Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said:

“In some cases, it’s not very clear because of the circumstances of the case exactly who did what, but if we know that everyone was participating in the crime then it helps us to be able to prosecute them and to put those facts before the court.”

She added:

“If you’re just standing there, we won’t prosecute you.”

The Crown Prosecution Service charging guidance provides further evidence of the approach for such crimes. It states:

“Where D’s role as an accessory is minor or peripheral and the offence in question is a minor offence, consider whether it is in the public interest to charge D at all. In particular, where a court is likely to impose only a nominal penalty on conviction a prosecution will often not be in the public interest.

Where D’s role as an accessory is minor or peripheral but the offence is a serious one, consider whether a less serious charge than that charged against the principal is more appropriate. For instance, where the offence attracts a mandatory or automatic or minimum sentence, the charge may be considered disproportionate to the culpability of D. In the vast majority of cases there is likely to be an appropriate lesser charge available. However, in the unlikely event that no lesser charge is available, prosecutors must weigh carefully the merits of proceeding with a charge for the serious offence, or not proceeding at all. The decision as to where the public interest lies will depend on the facts of each case.”

The guidance goes on to address the public interest test in more detail:

“Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest… This approach applies to all cases involving secondary liability.”

I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, that the CPS guidance is already pretty robust in ensuring that people are not unduly prosecuted for crimes in which they played barely any role. According to the guidance, they certainly should not be prosecuted for the same offence as the principal person involved in the crime. That covers an awful lot of her concerns.

The more serious the offence, of course, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. Parts b) and c) of paragraph 4.14 of the CPS code state that

“When assessing the seriousness of an offence, prosecutors should include in their consideration the suspect’s culpability and the harm caused”

to the victim; that

“Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family”;

and that

“The greater the suspect’s level of culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.”

There are clear examples in which a case is too complex and neither party is innocent, even if one party was substantially liable. One such example is the Crown v. Gnango, which involved the unlawful killing of Magda, a 26-year-old Polish care worker. Magda was on her way home from work in New Cross, south-east London, when she was shot through the head with a single bullet. She was caught in the crossfire between two gunmen in a car park. The two men were in a dispute and went there with the intention of killing each other. Scientific evidence allowed the police to identify the individual who fired the fatal shot. However, I thought—as did the court—that that was irrelevant, and that both men should be considered guilty because they both played their part in her death.

Another case involving a wholly different situation was considered—even if it was given only minimal weighting—by the judges in Crown v. Gnango, as it also applied the doctrine of joint enterprise: Mansell v. Herbert’s case. During the course of an attack on a house by a group of men, a woman was killed by a stone thrown by one of the group at another person. By a majority, it was decided that all were guilty of murder.

The Law Commission recommended retaining the Chan Wing-Siu principle owing to the availability of two defences. Under the first defence, a defendant can challenge a joint enterprise charge by demonstrating a fundamental difference between the agreed-upon criminal adventure and the committed crime, which I think covers much of what the hon. Lady was saying. The interpretation of that defence has led to complexity as courts grapple with determining what constitutes a fundamental difference.

The second defence relies on the defendant showing clear and unambiguous withdrawal from the venture before the crime was committed, which, again, I think is a very pertinent point. While the law about withdrawal is less complex, it is deemed overly restrictive. Moloney and Natas highlighted the case of R v. Mitchell, in which the defendant was convicted of murder, despite not having participated in a fatal assault, owing to her continued presence in the vicinity, suggesting her ongoing involvement in the crime. The definition proposed in the Bill will amend the defences applicable, and the defendant will now have to prove that his contribution to the offence was not significant.

I mentioned earlier that I would argue that we need some changes in the other direction, to secure more convictions in some cases. Jimmy McGovern might want to cover some of these cases in a drama to make the point as well, because as far as I am concerned, these cases are travesties of justice. Let us take the case of Donald Banfield. His wife and daughter were convicted of his 2001 murder, but their convictions were overturned despite its being accepted by everyone—including the lawyers acting for both of the accused—and recorded in the judgment in the case that Donald Banfield was murdered, that his death occurred between 11 and 16 May 2001, and that he was murdered either by both his wife and his daughter together or by one of them. Those facts are not disputed, yet these two women are free to walk around while that poor man is dead. It is outrageous that simply because neither will assist the prosecution with the case and tell them what really happened, nothing can be done to bring one or both of them to justice.

Then there was the murder of Kevin Patrick Lavelle in June 2004. I met the parents of Mr Lavelle, who have not only to live with the agony of losing their son but to face the ongoing suffering because no one has been convicted of his murder. In the Court of Appeal Civil Division judgment of 18 April 2011, Lord Justice Hooper said:

“On 24 June 2004 Mr. Lavelle was fatally injured in a fight that took place at ‘The Cricketers’ Arms’ public house in Middleton Road, Banbury, Oxfordshire. He died in the early hours of 25 June 2004. He was 29 years old.”

The judge continued:

“The cause of his death was aspiration of the contents of the stomach resulting from two head injuries to the deceased inflicted by a heavy steel weight lifting bar belonging to the deceased.

It was common ground that the deceased died in the course of a fight involving him, Mr Kirk and some, or all, of the first three respondents.

In late March 2009 following a coroner’s inquest a verdict of unlawful killing was entered.”

It seems very clear to everyone that Mr Lavelle was murdered, and that he was murdered by one of those people, yet no one has been successfully prosecuted for his murder and, tragically, unless something changes in the law—unless the law of joint enterprise is stiffened up—that will continue to be the case: no one will be brought to justice for that crime.

Finally, for now, there is the case of Andrew Jones, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside will know of very well because he was murdered in her home city of Liverpool. I also met the family of Mr Jones, and they too are devastated by the lack of a conviction in his case. I believe that at the inquest held in 2008, the Liverpool coroner, André Rebello, concluded that only one person was responsible for killing Andrew on the basis of the evidence that he had heard. Mr Rebello did not name that individual in court, but I understand—the hon. Lady will be able to correct me if I am wrong, because she will know far better than me—that her local newspaper did publicly name the killer, and said that if it was not them, they should sue the paper. It seems that none of the people who were there on the night are prepared to say who threw the fatal punch, although obviously one of them knows it was them and it is likely to have been witnessed by at least one other. Yet this has happened under the current legal joint enterprise framework, and it paints a very different picture from the one portrayed by the Bill’s supporters today.

When I asked the Crown Prosecution Service about these cases, Alison Saunders, then the Director of Public Prosecutions, provided a reply explaining the issues involved:

“Turning to the general points that you raise, each of the cases that you have highlighted have raised very different issues and demonstrate that the law regarding participation by a number of individuals raises complex challenges. As you will appreciate, any change to existing legislation remains a matter for Parliament. The principles underpinning the doctrine of joint enterprise have been developed over many years through court cases and in recent legislation such as the Serious Crime Act 2007. I am satisfied that these principles have been correctly applied in the cases”.

This is not a fault of the Crown Prosecution Service, but of the law. We should not forget that it is causing terrible heartache to families.

As it stands, joint enterprise acts as a deterrent. If this Bill was passed, it would water down the benefit of the current legal position when it comes to the deterrence of crime. Deterrence theory logically suggests that individuals refrain from committing crimes when the perceived costs or risks outweigh the potential benefits. In the context of joint enterprise, the threat of being held accountable for the actions of others may deter individuals from participating in those activities where joint liability could apply. This deterrence mechanism operates on the premise that individuals will prioritise self-preservation and avoid situations where they might be implicated in criminal conduct. Its very existence serves as a deterrent by increasing the perceived risks associated with criminal involvement. The prospect of facing severe legal consequences, including lengthy prison sentences for crimes committed by co-conspirators, can dissuade individuals from engaging in joint criminal enterprises.

Furthermore, supporters of joint enterprise, like me, would say that it fosters a sense of accountability among group members, as they are aware of the possible reper-cussions of their collective actions. High-profile cases where joint enterprise convictions have been upheld, such as those involving gang violence or organised crime, often highlight the punitive outcomes associated with joint enterprise convictions, which can act as a deterrent for potential offenders.

Another good example of the benefit of joint enterprise is epitomised in a leaflet produced in the home city of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside by a wonderful lady called Jean Taylor from an organisation called Families Fighting for Justice. It gives out that leaflet to children and parents in Liverpool. I will not use it as a prop, because you would tell me off for doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in this leaflet, which she hands out to schoolchildren in Liverpool, she makes clear the full repercussions of being involved in a crime that could be listed as joint enterprise. She gives an example of eight young men tried for murder. They were all at the scene of the crime, but the court could not tell which one had performed the murder. Because of joint enterprise, all eight were found guilty. The story shows that someone does not have to personally commit the crime with a gang or group to be found guilty of the crime. She puts in bold:

“This highlights the risks your child takes when being in a gang.”

I commend Jean Taylor and Families Fighting for Justice for all the work they have done on joint enterprise and to deter young people in her city from getting involved in gangs.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very complex argument, and I have been listening to it. There is some interesting material in it. He has been speaking for more than half an hour, and some of us would like to contribute to this important debate. Many of us agree with exactly what he has been saying about the great need for radical reform in joint enterprise. I would have thought he could join us in supporting the Bill. Will he give the rest of us a chance to contribute to this important debate?

[Philip Davies]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because the Member proposing the Bill spoke for longer than I have spoken.

[Mr Sheerman]

It is her Bill.

[Philip Davies]

We have invented a new rule, it seems. I have not known it before, but the hon. Gentleman has been here longer than me. Apparently there is a rule that I was previously unaware of that the person who speaks first on the Bill gets to speak for the longest. I did not know that was a rule. It is obviously one that has just been invented. I would have thought he has been here long enough to understand that in this place we are supposed to have a debate. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside sets out her position, that means that people who disagree with her are entitled to set out their position, which might differ. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) only likes to hear arguments with which he agrees. This will be a novel experience for him, as today he will have to force himself to sit through somebody giving an opinion with which he disagrees. I know he does not like that, but I am afraid it is tough.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that I have been in the House longer than him. I have always believed that this a Chamber where we have an honest, open and fair debate. I appeal to him to give others, such as me, a chance to make a short contribution. If he has another motive—not to make a good contribution to this debate but to talk the Bill out—that is another matter. Will he be clear whether he will allow some of the rest of us to make a contribution?

[Philip Davies]

I am going to allow everybody else to make a contribution to the debate. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, through his pointless interventions, has delayed that from happening. I have zero intention of talking out the Bill. The Bill does not need to be talked out, because, as far as I can see, it is so flawed that it has no prospect of being passed anyway.

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have plenty of time to make their case during the debate. I am simply making the alternative argument—the one against the Bill—and I am taking a similar amount of time to speak against the Bill as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside spent making the case for the Bill. I do not think anybody could possibly see that as unreasonable —aside from the hon. Gentleman, who, as I said, does not like hearing arguments with which he disagrees.

Before I was interrupted, I was talking about Jean Taylor and Families Fighting for Justice. The hon. Gentleman would do well to speak to them and find out about their horrific experiences. I can tell him that Jean Taylor, unbelievably, lost her sister in 1998, her son in 2000 and her daughter in 2004, all as a result of acts of homicide, including acts of joint enterprise. She has campaigned for years to fight for victims and reduce crime. Her work on joint enterprise, as I have demonstrated, has been invaluable. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman would rather that Jean Taylor, her work and her personal experience were not discussed in the debate, but I will certainly not make any apology for mentioning her work and her terrible experience, which I suspect is greater than his experience in this field. Jean Taylor has every right to have her views taken into account by this place.

With that—we could have got here a bit sooner if the hon. Gentleman had not pointlessly intervened—I will just say that I do not see the same problems in joint enterprise that others do. I actually think that joint enterprise as a concept has been effective in ensuring that our streets and communities are safer places than they otherwise would be. It has been effective in making sure that people are brought to account for some despicable crimes when otherwise they would not have been brought to account for them. If anything, as I set out with the number of cases I referred to earlier, the problem with the law on joint enterprise is that it is not working sufficiently—it is not drawn tightly enough—to ensure that it is used by the prosecution service in cases where, in my opinion, it should be used. It is not allowed to use the law on joint enterprise because it has been so restricted through common law, decisions by the Supreme Court and statute.

I urge the Government not to agree to any of the changes to joint enterprise sought by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, but to go away and see how we can use it to ensure that it better holds people to account and brings justice to the three families I mentioned. They have suffered from horrendous crimes and not had the closure of seeing somebody brought to justice, even though they know who was responsible. How must that it feel for people to know, even under the current law, that one of the two or three people responsible for the death of a family member still cannot be brought to account? I ask the Minister to resist the hon. Lady’s request and instead to look at how we can tighten the law. I think that would serve our communities better, so I oppose the Bill.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his lengthy and constructive speech, from which I have learned a lot. He has reaffirmed my belief that this area of law desperately needs looking at, whichever way we approach it. At every level at which I have taken evidence with the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. I am delighted to say that my old friend—and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—Glyn Maddocks, who works with the APPG and has played such an important part in this campaign, is in the Public Gallery today.

I will try to be fair to every Member by making a short speech. I have been campaigning on this issue for a considerable amount of time. In the evidence we have taken in the all-party parliamentary group, we have listened to all sides of the argument, and we believe that something is wrong with the joint enterprise law. We have talked to everyone, including justices and the commission in Birmingham. They may have had differences in the way they nudge it, but they know that it has to be nudged somewhere to give justice in this country to everyone involved.

I have a tiny point of disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). Young black men are more influenced by this injustice in the justice system, but the evidence we heard showed that it is not a matter of colour, creed, race or religion; a diverse range of individuals have been affected unjustly by this law.

My message today is that this is a good Bill and it should go forward, because the hon. Member for Shipley and I can continue the dialogue and debate and get this right. I am sure that he would agree that, in the end, the job of Parliament is to identify things that do not seem to be quite right and constructively work together to make them better. There is no devious plan or ulterior motive. The motive is that we believe there is injustice in the system at the moment, and we agree with judges, barristers, solicitors and everyone—let us all get together and change the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I shall be very brief, because, clearly, there is a mood in the House to take the Bill forward.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) on producing this Bill, and take the opportunity to thank many people over many years who have been campaigning on this. Jimmy McGovern has been mentioned as have all of those involved in Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. I first met them with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about 10 years ago. As members of the Justice Committee, we were able to persuade the Committee to undertake an investigation into the case. I have never forgotten the power of the evidence that they brought forward of the effect on families. I have met many of the families affected, including those in my constituency. I heard how young people were ensnared into the criminal justice system, because of an incident that took place. Sometimes they knew the people from school. Sometimes, they happened to be on the same bus, or in the same vicinity on the street. It did not mean that they either commissioned or took part in the criminal act that took place. As a result, they received a criminal sentence.

I spent a day—again as a member of the Justice Committee—listening to young people in Feltham describe why they were there and what had happened. It was eye-opening and instructive to learn of the life opportunities they had lost because of the use of the joint enterprise law.

[Mr Sheerman]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware of this, but I got involved in this matter when, as chair of the Westminster Commission on Autism, I discovered the number of young people on the spectrum who were getting involved in these cases. That is how I got involved. It is remarkable that there is such a link. Does he agree that we should be careful of that as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)]

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for introducing the Bill. I know the issue is of significant interest to her and indeed to other Members of the House. However, I must say at the outset that the Government are unable to support the Bill in its current form.

I will explain our reasons for that later in my speech, but let me begin by saying that the Government understand and recognise the importance of the law of joint enterprise and the consequences that result from convictions for such crimes. We recognise that they can be extremely difficult for defendants and their families to accept, but equally the impact of any crime is devastating for the victim and their family, particularly when the crime is murder. For any Government, there is a need to ensure that any perpetrator who commits a crime, or aids, abets, encourages or assists in one, is brought to justice. Victims and their families especially have an expectation that all those involved in that crime, particularly a crime as serious as murder, will be prosecuted.

We have heard powerful and sincere speeches from both sides of the House, and I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). For the benefit of the House, I will give further explanation of the law on joint enterprise and how it works in practice, and then I will outline why the Government are not supportive of the Bill today.

We have all read the headlines about joint enterprise cases—the individuals who are charged and convicted of crimes, despite stating that they did not commit them or were not there when the crime occurred. However, more often than not, those headlines reduce to a few sentences extremely complex cases involving a significant body of evidence that needs to be considered in detail in order to truly understand what happened. That is rightly the job of the independent courts.

As many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, joint enterprise is a complex area of law. It is a common-law doctrine that can be applied to most offences, and generally applies where a person assists or encourages another to commit a crime. The principles that apply to joint enterprise cases remain the same whatever the offence, and apply equally to planned and spontaneous acts of joint enterprise.

Where two or more individuals are involved in committing a crime, the parties to the offence may be classed as principals or secondary parties. Each offence will have at least one principal, although it is not always possible or necessary to identify who the principals are. A principal is the perpetrator of the substantive offence, and a secondary party is one who aids, abets, counsels, procures—more commonly known as assists—or encourages a person to commit the substantive offence without being the principal offender.

It is a fundamental principle of the criminal law that an accessory to a criminal offence can be tried, convicted and punished of an offence in the same way as the principal, even if it was not their hands that personally struck the blow, ransacked the house, smuggled the drugs or forged the cheque. Where they encouraged or assisted those physical acts and had the necessary intention, the law says that it is right that they too are found guilty. Similarly, an accessory to a crime shares culpability precisely because they encouraged or assisted the offence.

No one doubts that if the principal and the accessory are engaged together in, for example, the armed robbery of a bank, which was mentioned, the accessory who keeps guard outside is as guilty of the robbery as the principal who enters with a shotgun and extracts the money from the staff by threat of violence. Nor does anyone doubt that the same principle can apply when, as sometimes happens, the accessory is nowhere near the scene of the crime when it eventually transpires. The accessory who funded the bank robbery or provided the gun is as guilty as those at the scene.

Sometimes it may be impossible for the prosecution to prove whether a defendant was a principal or an accessory, but that does not matter so long as it can prove that they participated in the crime as either one or the other. That said, the threshold for anyone to be prosecuted and found guilty under the joint enterprise principle is very high. They must intend to assist or encourage the commission of the crime, and therefore must know of the existing fact necessary to make it criminal. If the crime requires the principal to have a particular intent, the secondary must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with that intent.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Gareth Bacon]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to take interventions. There are other Bills that need to be debated, and it is important that the Government’s case is put. We have had a lengthy debate. Section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 provides that a secondary party can be prosecuted and punished for the indictable offence as if they were the principal offender. That is the provision that the Bill seeks to amend.

Until the judgment given in the case of R v. Jogee, the courts had identified three ways in which liability for an offence committed with others might arise. The first is where two or more people join in committing a single crime in circumstances where they are, in effect, all joint principals—for example, where a group goes on a shoplifting spree, taking goods out of shops without payment. In such a scenario, those involved are joint principals. The second is where a person encourages another to commit a single crime; an example would be one person providing another with a weapon, so that they can use it in a robbery. The person providing the gun would be liable as an accomplice. The third is where two or more individuals participate together in a crime and, in the course of committing that crime, such as a robbery, one member of the group commits a second crime—for example, he shoots the security guard. The other members of the group may be prosecuted as accessories if they foresaw that the person with the gun was likely to use it. This type of joint enterprise is known as parasitic accessory liability.

Parasitic accessory liability was crystallised in the case of R v. Powell, which involved two defendants who went to a drug dealer’s home to buy cannabis, during which one of the defendants shot the drug dealer. Both were convicted of murder; it was held that the other defendant had foreseen that the other party might use the gun, and he was therefore convicted as an accessory. That case adopted the reasoning set out in the case of R v. Chan Wing-Siu, which involved three defendants who broke into a victim’s flat, with one defendant stabbing the victim to death and wounding his wife. All three defendants were convicted of murder, which resulted in the principle that if two or more people set out to commit an offence and, in the course of it, one of them commits another offence, the second person is guilty as an accessory to the latter crime even if he did not necessarily intend the commission of that offence; it is enough that he foresaw it as a possibility. The precedent was therefore established that a secondary party to a joint enterprise would be deemed to have intended to encourage or assist every one of the principal’s offences.

However, as we have heard, the case law moved away from that principle as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in R v. Jogee. Ameen Jogee was initially convicted on the principle of parasitic accessory liability for the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011. The Crown court heard at the time that Mr Jogee had “egged on” his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Mr Fyfe in the heart. Mr Jogee argued that he was not inside the house when the incident took place and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do. He was convicted of murder, with a minimum custodial sentence of 20 years.

Mr Jogee appealed against his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. Following this, in October 2015, he asked the Supreme Court to review the doctrine of joint enterprise and to hold that the court took a wrong turn in Chan Wing-Siu and the cases that followed it. Mr Jogee argued that the Chan Wing-Siu decision was based on a flawed reading of earlier authorities and questionable policy arguments. The respondents disputed those propositions and argued that even if the Supreme Court were persuaded that the courts took a wrong turn, it would be for the legislature to decide whether to change the law, since the law as laid down in Chan Wing-Siu had been in place for 30 years. The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mr Jogee’s case in February 2016.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Gareth Bacon]

I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to give way.

[Mr Sheerman]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is going on? There is a feeling at the moment that junior Ministers will not take interventions, which is against the whole spirit of a Friday open debate. What is the matter? All I want to know is whether the Minister is content with the joint enterprise situation at the moment. Will he please tell the House that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. It is the decision of the person who is on their feet as to whether or not they take an intervention. The Minister has decided not to.