Do unto others at work

Smith, Nick

doi:10.1049/et.2009.1017

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was 'ample evidence to establish that the group was, to the knowledge of each person which joined it, an armed gang ready and willing to shoot to kill during any confrontation which might arise'. 28 Jurors are routinely instructed that evidence of a defendant's presence at the scene of a crime is not in itself evidence of participation in the crime, and equally routinely assured that they may draw inferences of participation and foresight from presence at the scene. Typically, Judge Richard Wakerley told the jury trying Rahman, ' .…”

Section: The Evidential and Inferential Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Wolf Packs in Our Midst and Other Products of Criminal Joint Enterprise Prosecutions

Green

McGourlay

2015

The Journal of Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in the law on secondary participation in joint criminal enterprises since 1985 have been driven by a judicial policy aiming to counter a perceived threat to social order from criminal groups. This article argues that these changes enable prosecutions to succeed through the use of tenuous forms of evidence and epistemologically unjustified inferences which juries are permitted to draw from such evidence, a combination which effectively lowers the standard of proof. The lowering of the standard of proof has two effects. First, it makes it easier and cheaper for police investigators to construct prosecution cases, and secondly, it is likely to result in injustice. Many claims have been made that it does indeed have the latter effect. The police view the joint enterprise doctrine as a useful tool, and other parts of the criminal justice system are willing to collaborate with the development and refinement of the tool. This article explores the reasons why support is given to a development which requires such a drastic change in accepted legal standards. The Law Commission justifies these changes by its adoption of a theory that an individual who joins a group engaged in criminal activity changes her or his normative position to that of the group, and so may be held responsible for any crimes committed by any member of the group. However, the theory is unsupported by empirical research. Rather it is grounded in the findings of courts trying cases in which the joint enterprise doctrine is applied, and has its origins in theories which assign to criminal courts the responsibility to identify certain groups as enemies of society. Its application produces the populist characterisation of casual groups of young people as 'wolf packs'.

show abstract

Section: The Evidential and Inferential Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%