What constitutes Substantial Injustice? As I sit in my cell, having served eleven and
a half years of a twenty year tariff for a conviction of [joint enterprise]
murder, I have to ponder this question if I have any chance of gaining [simple]
justice. Basically, I am astounded that
this is even considered a legitimate question by those who represent the very
best of our judiciary.
Having established that our
criminal “justice” system have been manipulating a doctrine – not even a
substantive law – for the best part of thirty years (the length of some
tariffs), the Supreme Court determined that anyone convicted under this unjust
doctrine (pre-Jogee) must first show that they are suffering from Substantial Injustice.
I have been studying for a law
degree for 5 years now, briefly touching on criminal law along the way, so I
cannot claim to be as knowledgeable as are our esteemed judges. However, the Rule of Law: Right to a Fair Trial
and the fundamental maxim that No Person is Above the Law all mean nothing if this
question is allowed to be accepted.
Injustice is what it says on the
tin. If something is found to be unjust
then surely allowing the word substantial to be prefixed to it is an act of the
judiciary putting itself above our fundamental Rule of Law and an
unconstitutional mockery. The judiciary seem at odds to ‘ever’ put their
mistakes right – if you are lucky enough to be able to prove them wrong in the
first place – they use rules of construction/interpretation to slip through
rough terrain like a snake.
They come out with complete
madness such as:
“…where a conviction has been
arrived at by faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time. It can be
set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal out of time. That court has power to grant such leave, and
may do so if substantial injustice be demonstrated, but it will not do so
simply because the law applied has now been declared to have been mistaken.” (R
v Jogee [2016] UKSC8)
This principle comes from the
case of Ramsden [1972] Crim LR 547, which involved a conviction of Dangerous
Driving for which the relevant sentence involved would be from 6 months up to 3
to 4 years at worst.
Do not get me wrong, one day in
prison is too long, especially if wrongfully convicted but in most Joint Enterprise
cases I know of, we are talking of minimum sentences from 15 years all the way
up to 40 years. That to me (and I am
sure to anyone who was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong
time with the wrong person) is unequivocally unjust.
How have words such as ‘exceptional’
and ‘substantial’ been allowed to be accepted into the equation? Stop and Search, Two-Strikes, IPP and best of
all ‘JE’ are very clear indicators of a criminal “justice” system in crisis,
less focused on the cornerstones of Law which they [judiciary] represent, and
more concerned with what the ‘red-tops’ will report.
Sorry, but I have to laugh, if I
don’t I can only cry. And I have – and will continue to do so, for the victim
(who is never far from my thoughts), the victim’s family and friends, my family
and yes sometimes even for myself.
I was a drug addict for 14 years
and put needles in myself every day. I
did not care if I overdosed and died, but paradoxically I did care about my
family. I never intended to hurt them or anybody else. However, in Law my ‘intention’ is paramount
relative to a conviction for murder especially satisfying the burden of proof –
‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Criminality
as a whole dictates that people will invariably find themselves associating
with individuals who they do not particularly want to. Kids mostly join “gangs”
due to nothing more than fear. They are
caught up in conflicts that they had no part in starting and therefore, logically
have no ‘intention’ of finishing by which I mean by hurting anyone! They simply stay at the scene for a variety
of reasons (fear, shock) and pretend to be involved or even half-heartedly
participate for no other reason than to prevent them from also being a victim.
In my case it was shock and a
fear for the victim: as a drug addict I can talk from experience. From when I
first stuck a needle in my arm in 1991 for reasons that are irrelevant, I have
associated with literally hundreds of different addicts from hundreds of
different areas up and down the country. How am I, seriously expected to know
what they are capable of; I mean what they’re really capable of? I have been released from prisons in places
such as Cumbria, Liverpool and Preston and have stayed there for a time
‘associating’ with people I do not know well enough to judge how they may act
in any given situation. Thankfully
nothing bad ever happened on those occasions other than the usual back-stabbing
and disagreements associated with addicts, so I would simply move on.
However in an area not too far
from where I lived in Manchester but still far enough for me to be an outsider
I began ‘associating’ with more people I had no background information on. One
of these, my co-defendant, I had known for no more than twelve weeks. Imagine you daughter meets a new boyfriend.
Twelve weeks in the relationship you go for a meal with them. On the way home
you are passing a group of lads who make a rude remark to your daughter and
subsequently start harassing her. In the
eyes of the law you are entitled to use legitimate, reasonable force to protect
yourself and your daughter; so you simply try to push the assailants away with
the sole ‘intention’ of getting away.
Simple right?! Wrong. Your daughter’s boyfriend proceeds to
physically attack of the lads and uses much more force, aggression than you
would have intended used.
Is it fair that you are just as
responsible for any consequences which may follow from his (another person’s
intent) conduct? What if the victims
dies? Murder, Manslaughter charges for you and your daughter, think about
that! It could have been one single
punch. And not just you, your daughter is just as responsible because she did
not stop it. Bear in mind, if you knew
him for twelve weeks and had been out with him before (and your daughter) and
you had witnessed him maybe get aggressive in a verbal confrontation – you
would be presumed (courts love a presumption) as realising there is a
possibility (even a vague possibility will suffice) that he could be
aggressive: a vague possibility in my case was sufficient.
Under the misused, unjust
pre-Jogee doctrine if there was any possible foresight on your part that a
person could do something, then you (and your daughter) are going to be held
equally responsible. And if the
consequence is murder then you are all going to receive a mandatory life
sentence and your tariff could be 20, 25, 30, 35 years. I am, as are hundreds of others, actually
serving these sentences. We know what equates to injustice; for me it is being
labelled a murderer having not laid a hand on the victim, and I must add having
not encouraged my co-defendant to either.
Yes I know I was a drug addict,
and yes I did terrible things to get my drugs but nothing close to what I’m
convicted of. I totally accept that I
put myself in the position I was in and am totally prepared to go to prison for
every single day of a sentence which reflects MY part/intention - not that of
someone I had no control over.
Is this fair? Is this justice? There was no evidence that I
threw the one punch which tragically killed the victim (it was proved my
co-defendant threw it) but the simple fact that I could have “possibly” foreseen
what my co-defendant ‘might’ do was enough.
Joint Enterprise murder
convictions like mine are clearly an Injustice, “substantial” or not.
