UK court ruling could fuel local appeals

| 19/02/2016 | 9 Comments
Cayman News Service

Supreme Court, London

(CNS): Local defence attorneys believe that a very important ruling in the UK this week regarding the misinterpretation by the courts for the last 30 years over crimes involving joint enterprise will impact a number of serving prisoners and future cases in the Cayman Islands. The law, which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow, has been wrongly interpreted since 1984, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The law has been used in courts across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and most UK overseas common law territories and has been used to convict people of murder, especially in gang-related cases, even though they were not actually the killer on the basis that the co-defendants “could” have foreseen the violent acts by their criminal partners and were therefore equally culpable.

But now, five Supreme Court judges have ruled that the courts were wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test to find someone guilty of murder and, as the law has taken a wrong turn, it needs to be put right.

Local defence lawyers in Cayman told CNS that there are several convictions here that this ruling will apply to and cases are being reviewed with an eye on the appeal court. Attorneys also said it is likely to apply to current cases before the courts and future prosecutions.

One legal expert told CNS that the law had worked as a “blank cheque” for prosecutors in some cases, making it easy for them to get serious convictions against people involved in a criminal scheme, even when accomplices were not the primary perpetrator.

Peter Polack, one of Cayman’s most outspoken criminal attorneys, said that he believed the onus was now of the authorities here to examine local cases and ensure that any miscarriages of justice are addressed.

“In view of this development, the chief officer of the relevant portfolio, Jacqui Wilson, the solicitor general, will surely conduct a prompt review of any affected cases and advise the public of the outcome,” he added.

The decision by the Supreme Court and their new direction on how the law should be interpreted came after the five judges considered the case of Ameen Jogee, who had been convicted of murder under the joint enterprise law for the stabbing death of Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011. The court heard that Jogee had “egged on” his friend Mohammed Hirsi, who killed Fyfe.

Jogee argued he was not inside the house when the incident took place and could not have foreseen what his friend intended to do.

Delivering the judgement, Lord Neuberger said it was wrong to treat “foresight” as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder. “The court is satisfied, after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases, that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984. And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right,” he said.

Read the Supreme Court summary of the case and the full judgment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Category: Courts, Crime

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Marcia says:

    I believe this ruling is suggesting that those involved in the commission of murder not being the killer should be charged with a lesser offence and not as equal as the killer.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Good to see all the legal experts commenting again. Perhaps read the judgment before you start ranting.

    • Anonymous says:

      I have read it and I concur completely with the criticisms in the other posts. This ruling will be used and abused by criminals acting in concert to escape responsibility for murder.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Prisons in the UK, BOT’s and US are being filled to capacity so in order to keep space changes in law are need to either prevent more people from going there or to allow for quicker release for space to be available. it doesn’t help when 1/3 of your state (Cayman 9,000) is on welfare and the more this happens the softer we will get on crime and ultimately less safer for law abiding citizens and added pressure on police to keep the public safe.

  4. Batman says:

    This is terrible news … Why are we asking Ms Wilson to review criminal cases?

    How many of us have gone out with a friend who just happened to murder someone?

    • Anonymous says:

      Worse still it will allow entire criminal groups to run wider defences. Criminal lawyers, they do love their criminals.

  5. Anonymous says:

    This is a terrible decision unless you are a gun wielding gun criminal on a kill or one of a group of robbers. Then it is great. Many evil people will escape justice as a result of this pathetic piece of liberalism. Time to reverse this by statute and also re-introduce felony murder to protect the good from the evil.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Why would the Solicitor General, who is the civil litigator for government, be involved in reviewing criminal cases?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.