The Video Ref wrote:The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried? Dear God what the hell are they doing ? And again the political propaganda machine is rolling out inflamatory "facts" to try and justify their cost cutting exercises which don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny by a newspaper reporter, and all the time, and because we've seen it all before, we all know that its being done in order to reward those who support the party, as many have said before, they don't even try and disguise it now, its all noses to the trough and get stuck in now for the last two years before its too late.

The Video Ref wrote:The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried? Dear God what the hell are they doing ? And again the political propaganda machine is rolling out inflamatory "facts" to try and justify their cost cutting exercises which don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny by a newspaper reporter, and all the time, and because we've seen it all before, we all know that its being done in order to reward those who support the party, as many have said before, they don't even try and disguise it now, its all noses to the trough and get stuck in now for the last two years before its too late.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Consultation closes today (though doubtless it's a sham, and decisions have as per already been made) on the shameful plans to continue driving a coach and horses through ordinary people's access to justice. Foremost amongst the plans is that no longer will a person arrested be able to call his or her own solicitor, instead they will get whatever muppet is covering those cells that day. Unless they pay, of course. As ever, the rich can get the lawyer they want. Added to a plan to impose yet more swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid across the board, in addition to 30% in the past 5 years, and a stated desire to close down 75% of the solicitors offices doing criminal law across the country, this is a recipe for miscarriages of justice. In future, you will get effectively Tesco criminal law, like value beans, and if you want justice but can't pay, well, tough. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22762984 The most evil government in UK history? Well, a good candidate. I hate to break it to you but the justice system in this country is already f*cked. Are you aware of 'joint enterprise law'? Alot of innocent people are serving LENGTHY sentences because of this. I'm aware of one lad who is serving 27 years in a maximum security prison because a gang in liverpool comitted a drive by shooting and the car that was used in the shooting had been insured by him a week earlier for a test drive. Because of this prosecutors were able to twist things and infer he was part of the gang, and under 'joint enterprise law' that means he can be done for the crime as well as them even though he was nowhere near it, did nothing and knew nothing about it. Look up the case his name is Wesley Porter. Another one is serving 18 years because when there was the rioting in 2011, a birmingham pub was attacked with police shot at. Some randomer was there having a drink and when it kicked off he ran off like everyone else. Unfortunatly he was an acqaintance with one of the people who was rioting and again, even though he did nothing is now serving nearly 2 dimes behind bars. Look up the case his name is Wayne Collins. The point is you don't have to actuyally commit a crime to be sent to jail anymore, you just have to know someone that does. The guidlines on this law are very grey and prosecutors are using it to rack up easy convictions, ata the expense of innocent lives. That's british justice for you.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:Consultation closes today (though doubtless it's a sham, and decisions have as per already been made) on the shameful plans to continue driving a coach and horses through ordinary people's access to justice. Foremost amongst the plans is that no longer will a person arrested be able to call his or her own solicitor, instead they will get whatever muppet is covering those cells that day. Unless they pay, of course. As ever, the rich can get the lawyer they want. Added to a plan to impose yet more swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid across the board, in addition to 30% in the past 5 years, and a stated desire to close down 75% of the solicitors offices doing criminal law across the country, this is a recipe for miscarriages of justice. In future, you will get effectively Tesco criminal law, like value beans, and if you want justice but can't pay, well, tough. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22762984 The most evil government in UK history? Well, a good candidate. I hate to break it to you but the justice system in this country is already f*cked. Are you aware of 'joint enterprise law'? Alot of innocent people are serving LENGTHY sentences because of this. I'm aware of one lad who is serving 27 years in a maximum security prison because a gang in liverpool comitted a drive by shooting and the car that was used in the shooting had been insured by him a week earlier for a test drive. Because of this prosecutors were able to twist things and infer he was part of the gang, and under 'joint enterprise law' that means he can be done for the crime as well as them even though he was nowhere near it, did nothing and knew nothing about it. Look up the case his name is Wesley Porter. Another one is serving 18 years because when there was the rioting in 2011, a birmingham pub was attacked with police shot at. Some randomer was there having a drink and when it kicked off he ran off like everyone else. Unfortunatly he was an acqaintance with one of the people who was rioting and again, even though he did nothing is now serving nearly 2 dimes behind bars. Look up the case his name is Wayne Collins. The point is you don't have to actuyally commit a crime to be sent to jail anymore, you just have to know someone that does. The guidlines on this law are very grey and prosecutors are using it to rack up easy convictions, ata the expense of innocent lives. That's british justice for you.

Joint Enterprise.

This covers situations in which a secondary party has lent himself to the enterprise and, by doing so, he has given assistance and encouragement to the principal in carrying out an offence.

So in other words, all you really have to do is lend a helping hand or encourage the offender in order to be liable for the main offence. Shouting encouragement to someone who is attacking someone else on a night out would suffice.

Each case turns on its own facts. The jury obviously thought your mates were somehow involved, and I suspect there is quite a lot more to it than meets the eye in a local press newspaper report. That said, there are miscarriages of justice,and it would seem Wesley Porter is appealing.

In actual fact the papers report pretty much nothing. Most of the information on this case has been found from various innocence projects and miscarriage of justice websites. When you scratch beneath the surface it's eye opening how many unsafe convictions there are.

The wesley porter one was actually a 4 month trial involving 3 other defendants who actually testified at trial that Wesley had nothing to do with it.

He's appealing but that'll be rejected. The justice system is so set in stone, once you are convicted of something it is tremendously hard to overturn.

Watch "Ragged" on Sky Arts. It's the story of how Ricky Tomlinson was fitted up during the Shrewsbury 24 case

Absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical assertion. It deals passably well with thousnads of cases day in day out.


Well, it would normally be referred to asthe law of joint enterprise, but yes.


No, they really aren't.


There is no report that I can find. Do you have alink? If so i'll be interested to read it.

Without reading it, it's YOU who is twisting the facts:

1. You do not KNOW whether he was involved, unless you were there or involved and I presume you weren't.

2. If the jury were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved in a joint enterprise then you must admit that is fair enough. He had a defence team, and they were unable to put a reasonable doubt into the mind of at least 3 jury members. I find that enough to say the justice system worked well enough in his case.
He could then have appealed, if he had grounds, all the way up to the Supreme Court. That is not a system which is fooked.

Noody would argue that there are not miscarriages of justice, but that is a seven day camel ride from saying that the whole system is fooked.

If you disagree that people should be prosecuted under joint enterprise, i suggest you enlist your MP and see about getting the law changed. If there is enough support amongst the population, it will be. Good luck with that. I think it is a reasonable principle myself.

I have found a brief newspaper reference:

This is only the briefest precis, but indicates far more connection with the incident than your biased summary. For example, you left the DNA link out. But the joint enterprise bit would appear to be having supplied a murder weapon. Not hiring a car.


I see Collins was found guilty of rioting, possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, and reckless arson by a jury’s majority verdict of ten to one. He is appealing. that is his right. Again, a jury majority was convinced beyond reasonable doubt and that is just how the law works. If the appeal courts agree the conviction is unsafe then he will either be released or re-tried. What is the problem with that? You surely can't demand a system where no jury ever gets a decision wrong? You must concede such a thing would be humanly impossible?

I also see from one report that:

The key phrase I see is "took part". Nothing about joint enterprise.


No, that's nonsense. No person has ever been convicted of "knowing someone who does". There is no such offence, and I think you know it. The guidelines are not grey, but clear, and like ANY criminal offence it is not an "easy conviction", it requires a jury (not a judge, not a prosecutor and not the police) to be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt.

The Video Ref wrote:The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried? Wow. Just wow. Not the story, which is disgusting enough, but the paper. If the Daily Mail, of all people reports how shameful and wrong the proposed reforms are, then that must be significant. Normally they would be cheering and clapping.

The Video Ref wrote:The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried? Wow. Just wow. Not the story, which is disgusting enough, but the paper. If the Daily Mail, of all people reports how shameful and wrong the proposed reforms are, then that must be significant. Normally they would be cheering and clapping.

A criminal aid lawyer's blog

A criminal aid lawyer's blog