Joint enterprise: possible reforms

Joint enterprise: possible reforms

There seem to be two main issues with joint enterprise, particularly when it is used in murder cases. The first is the level of involvement that is needed to make out the offence. It appears in some cases that the evidence required to support an assertion of a joint enterprise is quite tenuous. According to DPP v Woolmington, any and all elements that make out an offence need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to suppose that friends must have known the intentions of each other, for example. The second is the issue of fair labelling. Where the defendant is undeniably involved in some way in the offence, their involvement may still be so tangential that being convicted of the full offence does not seem like fair labelling. There are particular issues with murder because of the mandatory life sentence.

Joint enterprise is a common law doctrine, and so reform via the courts is possible. This sort of incremental adjustment might be considered most appropriate. A diminution of the ambit of joint enterprise might be considered the best option, given the policy issues of joint enterprise in tackling gang violence.

Another option is a statutory replacement. Violent disorder is a suitable statutory alternative for less serious offences. The maximum sentence for this 'either-way' offence is 5 years imprisonment. An option with a higher maximum sentence might be appropriate for gang homicide cases.