Joint Enterprise

[TF S4DK]

Lol.

JE is about circumstantial evidence.Its not about if you was present, its about if you can be connected to the crime or could have prevented the crime.

[Benicio del Toney]

Regarding any crime the 1st thing they are looking for is who was present at the scene.

That's why people are getting done for just being in a group when shit kicked off.

After that/failing that they will look at circumstantial evidence.

[TF S4DK]

But fam JE is about more than that, its about rooting out the events that led to the actual crime and then charging those people too for the crime.

If you line up man for a murder & then you get on a plane & the murder happens two days later while your sipping strawberry daiquiri's by a pool, they still want you. Now that fine if your actually guilty of doing that, however they way they using it they saying well we can't be bothered to do actual police work, so you prove to us your innocent...

[Young £]

toney allow it man

lol its annoying me just reading your stupidness

[Benicio del Toney]

toney allow it man

lol its annoying me just reading your stupidness

Explain what you have a problem with.

[SLEAZE BALL]

And I think there is a lot of naivity in this thread, unless you have been in court and were present at certain situations / saw the evidence it ain't about trusting what comes out a mans mout when he is trying to stay out of jail.

I have been a defendant in a JE murder trail at the Old Bailey.

My cousin who was 15 years old at the time who spoke to me on the phone for 1 minute 33 seconds in a 4 hour period was placed in his house by multiple witnesses and mobile phone evidence at the time of the murder. These are facts that were accepted by the prosecution QC.

He was first on the indictment, I was second and another of my cousins third.

There was no forensic evidence, witness identification or CCTV connecting any of us with the murder and none of us knew the victim.

This is not some chinese whispers scenario this is shit I've been through and come out the other side the way they are using the JE murder law in this country is a joke.

Finally, someone who has actually been in this situation.

Did you or any of your cousins do time for this?

Trial was 2 months the jury unanimously found us all not guilty in 1 day but we spent close to a year and a half on remand and a year before that on bail with dumb conditions.

[SLEAZE BALL]

Lol forget what?

How police try pin something on me if I have proof of where I was?

Youre not listening

My cousin was in his yard.

5 witnesses placed my cousin in his yard

Mobile phone evidence placed my cousin in his yard.

CCTV showed my cousin going to his yard.

The prosecution silk accepted he was in his yard.

They still charged him for murder and put him 1st on the indictment.

The way JE works you could go jail for life for sellin man a t-shirt because JE means they can use 6 degrees of separation to link you with a motive, suspect or victim.

[Zizouz]

toney allow it man

lol its annoying me just reading your stupidness

Explain what you have a problem with.

murder charge should be for MURDER is what people are saying

sounds like you are saying that regardless people should be smarter than to associate with x y and z

but that is irrelevant in this case because the point still stands a murder charge is for murder

guilty of stupidity/negligence/foolishness does not equal that of a murderer

that is where I'm having problems following the words of some people who say 'good, shouldn't associate with them people anyway'

the way JE is being used suggest lazy police work where they just sweep shit under the carpet and the poor into jail, why do you support this?

[SLEAZE BALL]

Hit the nail on the head with that post.

[Benicio del Toney]

Lol forget what?

How police try pin something on me if I have proof of where I was?

Youre not listening

My cousin was in his yard.

5 witnesses placed my cousin in his yard

Mobile phone evidence placed my cousin in his yard.

CCTV showed my cousin going to his yard.

The prosecution silk accepted he was in his yard.

They still charged him for murder and put him 1st on the indictment.

The way JE works you could go jail for life for sellin man a t-shirt because JE means they can use 6 degrees of separation to link you with a motive, suspect or victim.

I don't know the particulars of the case so can't speak on it too much, I thought I knew the case you were talking about for a minute.

It's a shame obviously that they had you on remand and I would go for compensation but the legal system ultimately worked because you weren't sent down for life.

All the evidence worked in your favour.

[Benicio del Toney]

toney allow it man

lol its annoying me just reading your stupidness

Explain what you have a problem with.

murder charge should be for MURDER is what people are saying

sounds like you are saying that regardless people should be smarter than to associate with x y and z

but that is irrelevant in this case because the point still stands a murder charge is for murder

guilty of stupidity/negligence/foolishness does not equal that of a murderer

that is where I'm having problems following the words of some people who say 'good, shouldn't associate with them people anyway'

the way JE is being used suggest lazy police work where they just sweep shit under the carpet and the poor into jail, why do you support this?

But JE isn't only about murder.

That is why I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into a debate on sentences.

The issue for me is the conviction.

I'm not saying "good, serves them right"

I'm saying "don't get convicted in the 1st place"

If you roll with certain people who do dirt and they need an alibi they won't pet to ring you for it, they don't care if you got kids or whatever.

If they do dirt and then ring you then it's peak, you are now implicated in what they have done.

There are various scenarios but in a lot of cases it's the same recurring theme I'm hearing, people dragging others down with them.

[Goddaz]

Even though you still don't get it I'll c/s the part about ppl dragging each other down with them.

When shit really hits the fan, ppl you thought would back you/who you thought were your tight ppls/who you expected to do the right thing usually switch up & it's a dog eat dog ting even best friends become strangers.

[SHOCK]

Even though you still don't get it I'll c/s the part about ppl dragging each other down with them.

When shit really hits the fan, ppl you thought would back you/who you thought were your tight ppls/who you expected to do the right thing usually switch up & it's a dog eat dog ting even best friends become strangers.

C/S

I used to hear people say this all the time, never took notice of it - untill it happened to me. When your a teen/eary twenties you think your boys are gona be there throughout your whole life. All it takes is one case, one girl, money or suttin like that for the realness to come out the shell

[Goddaz]

I was just sent this a few days ago by an organisation I'm working with in the fight against JE reform, it's abit of a read but worth it.

Fresh Evidence? Not in this Court!

Sheffield men denied retrial despite having evidence that could clear them

10 December 2011

Nigel Junior Ramsey, Denzil Ramsey, Levan Menzies and Michael Chattoo were convicted on 7 August 2009 of the murder of Tarek Chaiboub, who was killed when a sawn off shotgun was discharged at him in broad daylight on Spital Hill, Sheffield, on 11 July 2008.

Although Nigel Ramsey was in prison at the time, he was said to have ordered the killing using a mobile phone that had been smuggled in to him. There was no evidence to prove that any of the four had pulled the trigger, so all were linked to the killing through use of the joint enterprise law.

The four were said to be members of an ‘S3 postcode’ gang. They were alleged to be also responsible for a previous assault on Chaiboub carried out on 6 July, to which another defendant, Javan Galloway, pleaded guilty.

The four charged with murder were put on trial first, and two other individuals, Daud Ahmed and Abdi Rahman Ali, who were alleged to have assisted Denzil Ramsey with disposing of the weapon, were charged with perverting the course of justice and tried separately after the four were convicted.

A shotgun found hidden nearby in Osgathorpe Park was claimed by the police to be the weapon used in the murder, who linked it to all the defendants in both trials. The police commissioned Dr Robinson, a firearms expert, to examine the gun, and on the basis of his report, the prosecution were able to claim that this was the murder weapon. The four charged with murder commissioned their own firearms expert, Mr Dyson, to examine the evidence, but his findings gave their lawyers no grounds to challenge the prosecution evidence concerning the gun.

The only other evidence was that of mobile phone calls made between the defendants (although there is no record of what was said in any of the calls).

At the second trial, the other defendants commissioned a different firearms expert, Geoffrey Arnold, who said that the experts in the first trial had not done their work properly. As a result, they had missed opportunities that could have proved whether the gun was or was not the weapon used to kill the victim.

In addition, Mr Arnold found evidence sufficient to enable him to conclude that it was unlikely that it was the murder weapon. It had almost certainly not been discharged since the barrel had been sawn off, before the murder. Following his evidence at the second trial, the jury found the defendants Daud Ahmed and Abdi Rahman Ali not guilty.

The mother of two of the defendants in the murder trial attended the second trial. Hearing that a key item of prosecution evidence had been discredited, she informed her sons’ lawyers. They commissioned a further report from the defence expert used in the second trial, and lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal. This appeal was heard on 8-9 December 2011 by judges Aiken, King and Stephens.

The appeal was entirely concerned with argument about whether the evidence of the defence expert from the second trial would count as fresh evidence. ‘Fresh evidence’, for the purposes of a criminal appeal, is evidence that was not available to the defence at the trial. Appeal court judges do not want their court to waste its time with hearing expert evidence that defence lawyers could have obtained, but failed to obtain at trials. They asked: was the evidence offered by the second expert genuinely fresh, or merely an opinion which differed from that of the first defence expert?

The judges did not call Mr Arnold so as to hear direct from him whether or not his evidence was fresh. They simply decided that the evidence was not ‘fresh’, and so the appeals were dismissed. They will give their reasons at a later date.

The families of Nigel and Denzil Ramsey, Levan Menzies and Michael Chattoo were outraged at what seems to be a gross injustice. At the later trial, exactly the same prosecution evidence that had been used to convict the four of murder had been discredited by a competent expert so that a jury could not find the defendants guilty. Surely they would be entitled to have this same evidence put before a new jury in a retrial of their case?

They had not had the chance at their own trial to use evidence that the prosecution expert had not followed established scientific procedures and as a result deprived them of the chance to prove that the gun shown to the jury could not have been the murder weapon.

Further, the jury that tried them had not had the chance to hear evidence showing the gun was unlikely to have been the murder weapon, nor did they have the guidance of a competent expert who could explain clearly why even the evidence produced by the prosecution showed that the gun was not the murder weapon.

For example: when a shotgun is fired, plastic wadding is discharged along with metal shot. Usually marks (striations) are made on the wadding which are characteristic of the particular gun that fires them. The wadding found on the victim showed no striations. But the wadding from a whole series of test firings by the prosecution expert showed consistent striations. This gun always left these particular marks. So it is highly unlikely that the wadding found on the victim was discharged by the gun exhibited at the murder trial.

Lord Justice Sir Richard John Pearson Aikens told us that the Court had decided not to admit this evidence on grounds of “expediency and justice”. “Expediency” is clear enough: their lordships do not want their valuable time taken up with appeals based on expert evidence. But “justice”? We are unable to see where anything we could recognise as justice comes into their considerations.

And if the four lads from Burngreave jailed with minimum terms of 20 – 35 years conclude that justice has been denied them and maybe put forever beyond their reach, we could not contradict them.

[SLEAZE BALL]

if anything its a failure by their legal team

the pantomime that is the justice system requires that certain skeleton arguments lead judges down one clear road leaving them no option but to agree

on the other hand i dont see how this evidence doesnt count as new evidence shit is disgusting

[Heero Yuy]

Heard about it on the radio this morning. This law is going to be misused differently.

Anyway herald in 2012, year of the snitch

[SLEAZE BALL]

Not sure if you understand what is being said tbh

/

Will be interesting to details of exactly what these new guidelines mean

[Heero Yuy]

This law has gained alot more publicity recently, the public are on a hype and so there removing the red tape and setting out clear guidelines.

So now they won't hestistate on taking these JE cases to court knowing the Juries will be clued up.

IE more convictions

[Goddaz]

I attended a JE reform meeting with Jeremy Corbyn MP (Member of Justice Committee) & the anti-JE group I'm working with yesterday at the Houses Of Commons. It was a very positive & productive meeting and I believe his going to fight for the cause.

We working on guidelines which Jeremy will submit to the committee so if any of you have anything you want to add on ways the law can be reformed holla.

If anyone wants to read the Justice Committee report on JE:

http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/productimages/default.aspx?ISBN=9780215040589&FORMAT=3

Jeremy goes in for the cause trust me. There some free ones at the HOC or via your MP I believe.

[arkain47]

it just mean watch who you jam around dont ivolve yourself with the wrong crowd and if you ever happen to witness a murder and u know the people who did you better tell police quicktime looooooooooooooooooooooooooool for they do you for murder as well thats um bullshit law but it makes sense ever so slightly

[Meticulous]

joint enterprise is f*cked. not a lot else to say tbh

[Goddaz]

All feedback welcomed.

[Guest chap44uns]

cringe

[JOHN DOE]

jengba sounds like some african 'dictator'

general jengba