Pros And Cons Of Joint Enterprise

REFORMS As discussed above we can conclude that the principal of joint enterprise has indeed brought forward quite some injustices however down to the core, its aim is to curb gang-related incidents. The law must always evolve and therefore the criminal division should also reform as well. We cannot rely on the judicial manoeuvres such as the Practice Statement to overrule cases but instead must amend the legislation surrounding it. Recently, there has been a review by the Law Society in September of 2017 regarding the issue raised by the Crown Prosecution Service on secondary liability. It was suggested by the Law Society, that in cases of violence involving groups of people, or gangs, the prosecutor should be cautious not to charge all

It can be inferred that the Committee has found margins of error within the principle of joint enterprise, therefore they have provided with a recommendation to alter it. The committee has therefore recommended that it be enshrined in legislation . Based on previous cases, the committee has proposed the legislation of joint enterprise to further bring certainty in the law thereby reducing miscarriages of justice to occur. The lack of clarity in the common purpose principle has been the bane to an individual’s freedom should they have been with the principal at the same time at the same place. This doctrine has costed plenty of defendant’s rights as well as their freedom, this recommendation would serve as a check and balance to regulate what a common purpose is and how one could be guilty of

However, at what cost will this take? As there are two sides of the coin to many scenarios, the imposition of the joint enterprise principle has reduced crime rate but has also led many innocent parties to be convicted for a crime they did not explicitly commit. That is not to say they committed no wrong but their actions do not warrant a life imprisonment with no hopes of parole especially in murder cases. This would be unfair and unjust as well as going against A.V Dicey’s first postulate to the rule of law that no man should be punished by the law unless he had explicitly breached