Supplementary written evidence from JENGbA (JEF 19)
RE: JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE FURTHER INQUIRY INTO JOINT ENTERPRISE
Without trying to anticipate the committee's findings or recommendations following the follow up inquiry on joint enterprise, JENGbA are eager to formulate some of our expectations for the future.
As you are aware we represent people without any hope of a future due to receiving hefty life sentences. If the committee comes to the conclusion that joint enterprise in its current form is unfair/unjust/not fit for purpose, we are still left with the devastation it has caused. We believe it is not inappropriate to point out, even at this early stage, that if joint enterprise was to be abolished in its current form, the abolition would not have arisen if those who had been unjustly prosecuted and sentenced had not had the courage to speak out and continue to do so with all the odds stacked against them.
It is difficult to express the torment of a miscarriage of justice, let alone convince others that you are, in fact, innocent, particularly in a murder case. The public do not want to believe that our well-honed, time honoured legal system has gone unchallenged for so long but it is clear to us that this illusion of justice will become very difficult to maintain as more and more people are touched by this legal doctrine. JENGbA and the people we support are of the belief that admitting there is a problem and then grasping the nettle and fully resolving the problem is the only way to move forward
It would be easy to blame the CPS, accuse them of institutionalised racism, declare it was their wilful abuse of a legal doctrine that has put the innocent in prison, say that they have gained more power in the courtroom than our judges. Accuse them of manipulating JE so there is no balance of justice from the very onset of every case. What would be the point? Who would it help? Those we support would still languish in prison.
JENGbA is not interested in providing a living history lesson, finding out where it came from or how it got to this point, I think we already have a good idea. We are about the here and now, resolving a problem that exists right this minute and progressing forward into a future that is fair and acceptable for everyone. For want of a better phrase, we are asking for a consultation into a settlement plan for all those we support.
We recognise that for any type of injustice to be accepted it needs to be relatively blame free, so that British justice does not fall too deeply into disrepute. We are aware that resolution must also be made palatable for the public, so that those without the knowledge or understanding we all have, in particular the victims’ families, do not fear any moves forward would allow murderers to walk free. This consultation could be about sitting around the table and discussing the process of how we move on, because whatever the outcome of the inquiry, JENGbA will still exist and we will still have to continue supporting and finding a way out for our prisoners. We believe public support will eventually demand this.
We have always chosen our words wisely and honestly. We believe all other agencies for victims, crime and justice should now do the same.
JENGbA can comfortably say that Joint enterprise does not work, in any way, shape or form, the scope is too wide. The guidance does not work, vulnerable children as young as 13 are still receiving life sentences bewildered by what they are supposed to have done. Leading academics have and continue to argue this.
1 of 2
If it worked there would be no JENGbA, there would have been no need for the brief inquiry let alone a
follow up inquiry. Universities up and down the country would not be providing students with information about joint enterprise, using the information brought into the public domain by JENGbA.
We must also ask why schools are teaching youngsters about joint enterprise, when it is not an actual law, just a legal phrase whose application can change with every given case, therefore, unteachable. It must be asked why JE is continually being described as a deterrent to gangs, knife and gun crime when it is being used against people who are not in gangs and when no weapons were used. The CPS and the police describe it as a useful tool, putting some of the country’s worst criminals behind bars, yet they only refer to the Stephen Lawrence case, which is one that lasted 23 miserable years and still no one knows who wielded the knife. If Joint Enterprise was a useful tool why was it not used 23 years ago?
Chris Grayling told JENGbA in a letter dated 23rd May 2013 that a knowing look is enough to convict someone of murder. No right minded person in the world, if asked, would ever agree to this and yet this illogical version of justice is dished out in our courtrooms unchallenged, every single day of the week.
When JENGbA began campaigning various agencies raised their (so called) experienced voices saying the burden of proof needed was of a high standard, that mere presence alone was not enough to convict, that we were the friends and family members of gang members, unhappy with the long sentences our loved ones had received. We have stood strong and remained calm through all this adversity and we will continue to do so in the full knowledge that it is wrong and immoral for this to continue.
One of our goals is to see natural justice delivered to those innocent men, women and children, some serving mandatory life sentences of 35 years and more for murder, when they clearly did not commit murder. It may be bold to say this but we want all the cases we hold to be the starting point of an investigation into the low levels of evidence used to convict them. As an open and transparent campaign we have always been capable of accepting help and advice from all corners, and because of this we have attracted a vast selection of incredible people who are eager to help us achieve our goals.
We have fully appreciated every minute of time the committee has given to JENGbA and our respect for this is the reason why we feel passionately about expressing our future expectations.
We do not have the answers we only have suggestions such as a consultation for a settlement plan, maybe the wrong phrase, but whatever we call it, we need something in place that sets the ball rolling for the rebuilding of so many lives. We want this to happen sooner rather than later, with those who fall into the categories of (agreed) unacceptably low level evidence to have their convictions immediately quashed/pardoned/given clemency. Expense should not matter because it pales into insignificance when compared to the rising costs of taxpayers’ money being poured into the prison system to pay for places of the innocent, many of whom are children.
A tall order, perhaps, but we do not believe that hands are tied or that something can never be done. As with the Good Friday Agreement this could become a compromise to right a very unjust wrong.