Are We Just Out For Blood? - Jacqui Hodgkiss

I appreciate that in recent times there has been a raising of awareness on victim impact, which I wholeheartedly support. However, this can not be at the expense of jeopardising British standards of the process of a fair and legal trial. Victims and their families are, understandably, highly emotional in the aftermath of any offence. Feelings such as these must not be allowed to have a place in the rule of law, to ensure a fair and just legal system. There are good reasons why matters are placed into impartial hands of our police and courts. Nor should policing or courts be pressurised by angry mob mentalities to make arrests and rulings in order to appease an enraged public. Such decisions should not be placed in the care of those whose emotional turmoil may lead to the desire of locking people up and throwing away the key, but by those who can impartially assess and appraise the individual nuances and circumstances of each and every case. As a society that values individuality we understand that generalisation born from prejudicial attitudes rarely offers fairness.

 

But what about the emotional impact on the families? Well, systems in other countries successfully manage these issues without compromising the right to a fair and just trial. For example victim impact statements at sentencing. Once guilt or innocence has been established, by good police work and competent legal professionals, victims can then play a role without prejudicing proceedings. 

Currently, it is possible that victims can influence outcomes of trials with their rights to express in the media allegations of guilt and innocence coupled with, what may be viewed as character assassinations of those standing trial, based solely on their own assumptions and before the evidence is put before a court. This is a right many defendants' claim they are denied as they can only idly stand by, bound by laws that do not allow the defendant to challenge these assignations or address misinformation that colour public opinion unfavourably against them. We all want to see justice being served, but with such comprises is it justice? Is the right person being put behind bars, or should we ask ourselves are we just out for blood?

Jacqui Hodgkiss 

When the Law Takes the Wrong Turn - Jan Cunliffe

[Originally published in The Huffington Post]

Way back in 1984 when I was a little girl with no idea what my future held, the law took a wrong turn. A turn I was oblivious to, but one that would one day engulf my entire life for over eight and a half years.

On a hot summer night in 1991 I gave birth to my first child, a healthy baby boy with the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen. Less than a year later I did the same again. I was the luckiest woman in the world; they were my pride and joy, always full of fun and sometimes a little bit naughty. I don't recall a month, a week or even a day that I was unhappy, although I am certain there must have been moments.

Everything changed in 2007 again on a hot summers night when both my 15 year old boys were charged with the murder of Garry Newlove. None of us knew Mr Newlove, his wife or his three daughters, but all of us were overwhelmed with grief that a 47 year old man had died so unnecessarily in his bare feet just 500 yards from his home. I am no detective but it was clear in the initial police interviews that my boys not only played no part in his attack, but they had not even witnessed it.

The press reported it as a savage gang attack, yet the Police Forensic Pathologist on oath, said the victims injuries were not consistent with a beating, that Mr Newlove had died because of a single unique injury. For all of us the trial process was about finding the truth, giving that truth to the jury so they could reach the correct verdict and satisfying the bereaved family that justice had been done.

The jury came back after 10 agonising days of deliberations and out of the five teenage defendants they found three of them guilty of joint enterprise murder and acquitted two. One of those found guilty was my eldest son, Jordan Cunliffe, by now he was age 16, but still my baby. The terrified pitch of the scream that came from his broken heart will be a sound I will never forget. The sight of his beautiful brown eyes as they blindly tried to search his brother out will be a vision I will carry until my dying day. How could the British justice system that claims to be the finest in the world, do this to a vulnerable child, a child who was proven in court not to have murdered anyone, yet still found him guilty of murder? It was because the law took a wrong turn in 1984, when I was a little girl and long before he was born.

The months turned in to years, the agony into frustration, but never bitterness. I knew the law was wrong, I knew my boy was innocent, so I set out on a mission to prove just that. With a strong feeling that he could not possibly be the only one that this dreadful thing had happened to I sought out others. I was lucky enough to meet like-minded women who felt just as I did. Beautiful, courageous women who trusted my judgement and supported me through my darkest days. And believe me those days were very dark, so dark and filled with madness I refuse to step too close even when just recalling them.

Jordan was considered registered blind on the night of the incident. He suffers from acute kerataconus and corneal scaring in both eyes. No matter how hard Jordan tried then or how he tries now he will never be able to explain what happened that night as his failing eyes saw nothing. On conviction the Judge in his wisdom placed a gagging order on anyone broadcasting his disability, all of which added further to my extreme misery. How could I explain his case to people if the most important aspect of who he was could never be told? There were so many things during the trial and afterwards that have gone wrong for Jordan. The use of the possibility of foresight that death or serious injury may occur during a spontaneous act of violence that lasted between 3 and 10 seconds on a blind child was just one them. How can anyone logically foresee what may unfold if they cannot see what is happening in the first place?

I am now overjoyed that the Supreme Court made the right decision on Thursday 18th February 2016, when they came to the conclusion that the controversial legal doctrine of joint enterprise had taken a wrong turn and since then been misinterpreted for over three decades. It was vindication for all I have been saying for over 8 years. I wish I was the kind of woman that could say the agony of losing Jordan was worth it if it means what happened to him will never happen quite so easily ever again, but I would be a liar. Until Jordan Cunliffe is acquitted he must remain in prison and continue serving a life sentence for a murder he never committed. And as his mother I will continue to fight for the freedom and respect that he deserves.

Information regarding Joint Enterprise can be found on the JENGbA Campaigners website http://www.jointenterprise.co/

By Jan Cunliffe (Joint Enterprise not guilty by association (JENGbA) co-founder and campaigner)

"An Amazing Day": Jan Cunliffe's message to JENGbA's Inside Campaigners about the UKSC landmark Joint Enterprise judgment

What an amazing day Thursday 18th February 2016 turned out to be. We were number two slot on the news. The Prime Minister made an announcement on the same morning, and according to a reliable media source it’s terribly rude not to put him on first even if what comes second is more interesting. I'm sure you're all aware that after the joyous reporting of the morning things started to falter with some of the mainstream media by late afternoon. That is probably because the BBC news website had gained over a million watched hits by lunchtime and bad murderous news stories sell better than good old fashioned success stories. This is perhaps why tactics changed by Friday morning with some of the papers awash with foolish headlines such as, 'Hundreds of Dangerous Murders Could Walk Free due to Supreme Court Ruling'. Don't worry though the Supreme Court Judges soon put the record straight and many MP's and knowledgeable legal people jumped on board to quash the mayhem via social media.

Facebook and Twitter was on fire with concerns from members of the public who were horrified that the law had taken a wrong turn for over three decades. Some were concerned that killers really would be set free, but still accepted how wrong it was that people who hadn't committed a murder were doing life for murder. There was some input from victims’ families, you may have noticed how they were confused and worried about the implications of the ruling, and quite rightly so.

It was never the job of JENGbA to inform victims’ families that a joint enterprise case was being heard at the Supreme Court, and even if it was possible to track down every family who had lost a love one and seen a conviction gained via joint enterprise, (which it isn't), it would have been highly inappropriate for us to contact them anyway. Firstly because we are here to support you, and secondly we had no idea what the result was going to be.

It seemed to me that some journalists felt there was a battle between victims of crime and victims of injustice. I am always asked how I feel about the victims, of course there is only one answer, and it is the same answer that every sane person would have. No victim was asked how they would feel if they found out that an innocent person was serving a life sentence for murder? We are not at war with the victims and nor should they be with us. The law took a wrong turn in 1984, the law got it wrong and because of that we are all paying a heavy price. Don't ever feel angry with the victims’ families, they have had the wool pulled over their eyes throughout,  and it must be devastating to now have to come to terms with the possibilities of what the future may throw at them.

So much news following the ruling means the vultures are circling. Good stories about miscarriages of justice sell newspapers, and a good documentary idea gets commissioned, so there is money to be made from all of our misery. I'm personally not worried about the media because if time and money can be invested by others in getting the message out there I welcome it, (as long as it is the truth). Many families did this and many more can contribute in the future, but they may want your permission first. I would say let them help you if they are willing to do so.

However, I am seeing law firms pop up declaring their acute awareness of the Supreme Court’s judgment and falling over themselves with promises of help. All I can say is JENGbA has been campaigning for years, we have struggled on a shoestring and to the best of my knowledge some of the names I'm seeing come out of the woodwork right now never showed an ounce of genuine concern for any of you or the JENGbA campaigners as we struggled to inform the public and MP's alike on the failings of joint enterprise. However, that is not to say it is all about the money and that alone, maybe they do have morals and a genuine concern. Only you can decide where and how you move forward, and who with. Just remember for those of you who are not wealthy, it should not cost you or your family anything right now. If you are asked for money upfront please contact JENGbA and we will find out why.

JENGbA newsletter January - February 2016 Issue 37

You can view/save/print JENGbA's latest newsletter after UKSC Jogee by clicking HERE

Five years later, and job half done

Five years later, and job half done 

When JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) was formed in September 2010, we had no idea how many people were serving life in prison for murders committed by other people. Neither did the CPS which did not even bother to record when the common law doctrine of joint enterprise was applied in multiple prosecutions.

We suspected the number might be large but nothing like the 600 (and growing) who have been discovered so far.  It is no wonder that the Council of Europe’s figures show that the UK has the largest proportion of lifers for the population than the rest of Europe combined.  The projected cost of incarcerating so many prisoners for long sentences is staggering. It is also no wonder that the prison estate is bursting at the seams in England & Wales.

We knew joint enterprise was unfair and that it discriminated against people for being poor, young, black, Asian or from other ethnic minorities.  We knew the popular press was quick to swallow the easy label of ‘gang murder’ fed by politicians from all parties vying to be seen as ‘tough on crime’. We saw some police spokespersons gloating triumphantly as they claimed the streets were safer due to the deterrent of joint enterprise, although knife crime is currently on the rise. We witnessed the ease with which the CPS scored flimsy convictions on the basis of what someone supposedly anticipated another person might do.  Joint enterprise had become the perfect thought-crime and the UK was apparently the better for its wide application in the courts.

But we did not yet know how to tackle this injustice. Our Inside Campaigners, as we call the growing number of joint enterprise lifers, were reviled in the media as the worst of the worst and blamed for the most appalling acts of cruelty and violence possible.  What could a small group of women and families do to change the law?

We talked, we met, we sought advice from concerned legal professionals. We learned as much as we could about this Common Law doctrine and found who was speaking out against its misuse.  We were surprised to discover that some very distinguished politicians, senior judges, legal academics and many others shared our concerns.

And as the JENGbA family grew, our Outside Campaigners became more confident and our voices grew louder. We knew we were making headway when knee-jerk critics  poured scorn on our campaign and some career politicians tried to write us off as misguided do-gooders or families of criminals who were too blinded to accept the reality of what our loved ones had done.

But we didn’t slink away defeated and ashamed. We knew we were right to challenge this legal abuse and we gained more interest and support. JENGbA has been aided, guided and bolstered in our campaign by many wonderful supporters, from ordinary people helping stuff newsletters into envelopes and joining demonstrations to extraordinary people – actors, musicians, authors, legal practitioners & lecturers, reporters and even some politicians from all leanings who put hard principles before cheap popularity.

It all culminated in the UK Supreme Court this week with the electric moment when Lord Neuberger declared that the law had taken a wrong turning 30 years ago. JENGbA finally knew our campaign with others for joint enterprise reform had been successful.  The imbalance in the criminal law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland had shifted towards fairness and a higher evidential threshold needed for conviction had been restored.  Prosecutors would have to work harder to prove guilt and individual responsibility would matter more than collective liability.

But what now for the 600-plus already known to JENGbA and for other unknown joint enterprise lifers? And what now for JENGbA itself?

It is far from over. The hard work begins of ensuring all those convicted unfairly by joint enterprise are identified and their cases reviewed as quickly as possible. JENGbA will hold those charged with this task to account. The means by which the courts and Ministry of Justice will deal with those affected by this week’s landmark ruling have yet to be worked out. We wait for the UK government’s response and to hear exactly what is proposed. But JENGbA will not rest until all the men, women, boys and girls condemned unfairly to life sentences by Joint Enterprise are given fair justice.

For some, the convictions should be erased and they should be helped to rebuild their lives as innocent, exonerated citizens. For others, the murder convictions should be quashed and replaced by lesser convictions with smaller penalties.  For few, their guilt may not alter and sentences remain in force but even for these they should be afforded a case review to ensure the law has properly taken its course.

Those affected by unjust convictions should be given legal help as the cost of doing so is far outweighed by the burden on the state of keeping them unfairly locked up.  The overcrowding of prisons will be eased and huge savings can be achieved in the process of redressing injustices. Help and compensation should be available for those whose lives have been cruelly disrupted by unfair convictions.  Again, this is a small cost against the public financial burden of incarcerating people unjustly for many years.  The personal costs of injustice on the prisoners and their loved ones cannot be calculated but JENGbA feels some provision to help those affected must be offered, not as an appeasement for judicial abuse but as a marker of a civilised society.

We wait to see what happens but we will not wait too long. Your call, Mr Gove.

JENGbA PRESS RELEASE ON UK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 18.2.16

Legal history has been made today - the law of joint enterprise as we know it is dead.

This was a law which allowed someone to be sent to prison for life merely because he or she foresaw what someone else might do. We said that it was a “lazy” law, a short-cut to conviction which confused juries and judges alike and which has resulted in widespread miscarriages of justice for decades.

For more than five years, JENGbA has campaigned tirelessly for change.  The Supreme Court has listened and we have been vindicated.  

Gloria Morrison of JENGbA said:

“It has the taken the hard work of many people over many years to get to this stage but we were never in any doubt that reform would come. The more we talked to people about joint enterprise, the more they became convinced that it had to change. We are grateful to the Justice Select Committee for their work. Their call for a change in the law was a turning point. There are many academics, lawyers and journalists who have helped us along the way. We wish to thank them all but in particular, we are indebted to our patrons, Lord Herman Ouseley and Jimmy McGovern, whose drama Common brought home to millions the injustice that the law of joint enterprise caused.

JENGbA has achieved one of its central aims, but our job is far from over. There are huge numbers of prisoners, many serving life sentences, who have been convicted under a law which the Supreme Court has acknowledged was a “wrong turn”. This judgement will offer new hope to them, to their families and their friends. We will fight to overturn every wrongful conviction.”

Simon Natas of ITN Solicitors, JENGbA’s lawyer said:

“This is a great day for justice. The Court unanimously ruled that the principle of liability based on foresight was fundamentally wrong; the product of an “incomplete and in some respects erroneous reading of the previous case law” which could not be justified on public policy grounds.  In short, the law was unfair, set the bar for conviction far too low and quite simply, did not work. The law was always indefensible, but now it has been confined to history. ”

Report Finds Racist Law Enforcement In England...Again

January 29, 2016 - 5:51am — washington

'Injustice writ large'

by: Linn Washington Jr.

 

London, UK -- Police and prosecutors scheme to secure convictions of persons who did not participate in any crime. Racial minorities disproportionately bear the brunt of this improper practice.

Sounds like too many cities across the United States.

However, this practice of racist law enforcement is also rampant in three of the largest cities in England, including the capital city of London, according to a report released recently by the Centre For Crime and Justice Studies of Manchester Metropolitan University.

“The key findings [indicate] the criminal justice system is more flawed than we might imagine,” states the conclusion of the report entitled “Dangerous associations: joint enterprise, gangs and racism.”

The study documents that claims by police in Britain that young blacks dominate gang membership and thus are demonstrably the most violent are incorrect. Police and court data cited in the report document that black youth were not those who committed the most serious youth violence. In London for example, police list blacks as 72 percent of that city’s gang members. But official data collected for the report stated non-blacks committed 73 percent of the serious youth violence in London.

Tottenham rights activist Scott with report co-authors Clarke (left) and Williams (right) -LBWPhoto

The report found that prosecutors during trials of youthful suspects seize upon on the gang label levied by police to create a sinister perception of criminality that boost prosecutors chances of obtaining convictions. Prosecutors often push non-crime related ‘evidence’ such as listening to rap music and texting friends, particularly in cases where the defendant was not at the scene of the crime…or even where the defendant may not have known a crime would ever occur.

“The language of gangs is conflated with serious violence,” report co-author Becky Clarke said when presenting findings of the report during a presentation at Parliament attended by members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Clarke is a Senior Lecturer in the Sociology Department of Manchester Metropolitan University.

Clarke’s co-author colleague, Patrick Williams, noted during an earlier presentation that “just because someone is from the same area and is a certain color does not make them a gang member.” Williams, a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Manchester Metropolitan University, said there are racially prejudicial purposes in the gang labeling done by police in Britain.

The report leveled particular criticism at Britain’s infamous Joint Enterprise Law, an enforcement mechanism that is literally ‘guilt by association.’ Under this law imprisonment can occur for a crime that the person did not commit or even know about. While the report found disproportionate use of Joint Enterprise against blacks, there is also a class-based application with JE with its use often against working-class and poor whites.

Center researchers Clarke and Williams called JE part of a “process of criminalization” that they said is rooted in race and class.

One often cited outrage under Joint Enterprise was the conviction of a blind teen whom friends took for a walk during which one person in the group scuffled with an older man, resulting the death of the drunken adult who, according to the evidence, had instigated the confrontation. Police and prosecutors asserted the blind teen, who is white, should have fled the scene by himself when he heard the fatal encounter escalating, despite his inability to see.

Patricia Brown knows the pain of flawed, race-driven JE policing/prosecution. Her eldest son Tirrell Davis is serving a life sentence for a murder that occurred in March 2007 when he was at home. Davis saw a fight while walking home from high school but left the scene. A fatal stabbing later that day, which occurred during a continuation of that fight, led to Davis’ arrest and JE conviction despite his complete non-involvement in that stabbing.

“The head of the jury at my son’s trial was a police sergeant! How does that happen?” Brown said. Brown a member of Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association. JENGbA is an activist organization pushing for the repeal of JE.

During the presentation of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies report inside a meeting room in the Parliament building, both liberal and conservative members of Parliament criticized the law.

Robert Neill, a Tory Party member of Parliament’s House of Commons, said JE “does not operate justly.”

Stephen Pound, a liberal Labour Party MP, said, “We haven’t said enough about the suffering of people swept up with this absurd law. [JE] is wrong at every level. This is injustice writ large.”

Another liberal member of the House of Commons, Andrew Slaughter, stressed that even families of murder victims are critical of JE. “Victims want to see people punished. But they want the right people punished, not just convictions of anyone and everyone.”

Over 3,000 persons are serving JE sentences, a spokesman for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies stated. JE sentences range from a low of three years to life in prison. Surveys returned by 241 inmates during the Centre’s study found 21 persons under the 17-years-old age who are serving JE sentences.

Investigative committees of Parliament have twice issued reports critical of JE. During that presentation of the Centre’s report, Lord Beith, who served on one investigative committee, said evidence indicates that JE reforms promised by the Crown Prosecution Service have been inadequate.

“Police officers are telling the public that you can be convicted weather you know of a planned crime or not. That contradicts claims by prosecutors and the government that [JE] needs knowing foresight,” House of Lords member Beith said. The JE law requires that a person charged had knowledge of the crime before it was committed - the foresight requirement.

“Joint Enterprise has inherent and dangerous weaknesses,” Beith stressed.

Centre researchers Clarke and Williams presented findings of their report at a community meeting in the Tottenham section of North London the night before their presentation in Parliament. Tottenham is where an August 2011 fatal police shooting of a black man sparked rioting that spread from London to cities around England.

Stafford Scott, the veteran rights activist in Tottenham who hosted the community meeting, said reading the report gave him the sensation of having seen such findings too many times before wit failures by repeated governments - conservative and liberal - to effectively address racist law enforcement.

“Blacks and minorities are disproportionately effected by the way the state uses its power sources,” Scott said.

“The young are given sentences longer than they have been on earth for crimes they didn’t commit. We need to get this Joint Enterprise law removed from the books.”

---

Source URL: http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/3026