Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association group claims families are suffering injustices

10:00am Sunday 30th September 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Dolores Cowburn, Bradford Chief Reporter

Some of those campaigning against the joint enterprise law Some of those campaigning against the joint enterprise law

The relatives of offenders convicted in Bradford murder cases are urging others affected by a controversial law to get in touch to get support.

Support group JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) held an event yesterday to raise awareness of the law, which sees people convicted by association with a serious crime.

They claim many Bradford families are suffering injustice because relatives have been convicted under the law of joint enterprise, which allows for a group of individuals to be charged with the same offence if they had the same intention and foresight of what was to happen.

Sarah Hall, whose brother Michael was given a life sentence with his then 22-year-old girlfriend Laura Mitchell and two other men in October 2007 for the murder of Andrew Ayres, 50, who was attacked in the car park of a pub in Halifax, spoke at the event.

The pair and a third defendant were sentenced on the basis that they were secondary parties to the death.

Mrs Hall said: “Michael and Laura’s case is on the periphery of this net, but is a very good example of the law the prosecution are using, which is joint enterprise, to catch people and convict.

“It also raises a lot of points raised by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

“It puts at risk people not coming forward because of the fear of being convicted. There are likely to have been, and will be, miscarriages of justice with these laws.

“We want to make people aware. Michael and Laura were a normal couple and were not part of a gang. They went out one evening and little did they know they would end up in prison serving a life sentence months later.”

Ishy Ahmed’s brother Abid Ashiq Hussain is one of the Bradford 3 who were given jail sentences totalling nearly 90 years after father-of-four Shazad Hussain, 21, was shot dead at point blank range in his car in an alleyway off Leeds Road in September 2004.

Mr Ahmed, who organised the Bradford event, said: “We need a group like this in Bradford because we need to raise awareness it is happening.

“You are just lost and you don’t know where to turn and if it helps one person wrongly convicted it is a big thing.”

For information about JENGbA, call Mr Ahmed on 07815 880446.

Comments(17)

EBE-3 says...
10:15am Sun 30 Sep 12

I think the Joint Enterprise Law needs improving to eliminate errors of judgement and I strongly believe each person tried for a crime needs to be judged individually and seperately. I don't know much about Law and crime but I can clearly see that a group of people can all be responsible for a serious crime, however, even I can see that procuring such a conviction is riddles with problems and is open to abuse or misscarrieges of justice. A group of people may decide to go kill somebody, some members of the group may be helpless to prevent the crime, or are vulnerable towards being influenced and 'dragged' into trouble and these persons need to be tried differently.

Report this post »

Albion. says...
10:45am Sun 30 Sep 12

I think if someone is in the company of or is aware of someone who commits a serious assault or fatality, they should inform the authorities or face serious consequences, I do accept that some prosecutions can be flawed however.

Report this post »

Mike Strutter says...
11:14am Sun 30 Sep 12

Joint enterprise law tends to kick in when the blame can't be apportioned to one individual , often in cases where groups won't grass on one particular individual.

Report this post »

The Hoffster says...
11:51am Sun 30 Sep 12

Here's something for the criminals to think about:
.
"Stop hanging around with murderous sc*m (otherwise, as can be seen, you'll be handed the same sentence)."
.
No tears here.
.

Report this post »

freespeech says...
12:02pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Mike Strutter wrote:
Joint enterprise law tends to kick in when the blame can't be apportioned to one individual , often in cases where groups won't grass on one particular individual.
Ditto.. If you fail to co-operate with justice, face the consequences of your inability to tell the truth. This law is for the conviction of those who protect the guilty. No support or tears here.

Can't do the time? Don't do the crime!

Report this post »

bradford rose says...
12:55pm Sun 30 Sep 12

Mrs Hall said: ...Michael and Laura were a normal couple and were not part of a gang. They went out one evening and little did they know they would end up in prison serving a life sentence months later.”

Well Mrs Hall, their victim was a normal man who went out one evening to celebrate a friend's birthday - little did he know that he would end up being stamped on and battered to death. The thugs even ran to a nearby friend's house to arm themselves with weapons for their sickening attack on a defenceless man.

The only injustice is that others who were involved in that attack were allowed to walk free.

Report this post »

yezboss says...
7:44pm Sun 30 Sep 12

In summary offences it is aid, abet council or procure, for indictable offences it is assisting an offender (which used to called harbouring or being an acessory before or after the fact)knowing or believing such an offence has been committed. Quite clear in my view.

Report this post »

wobbley-bob says...
8:17pm Sun 30 Sep 12

The Hoffster wrote:
Here's something for the criminals to think about:
.
"Stop hanging around with murderous sc*m (otherwise, as can be seen, you'll be handed the same sentence)."
.
No tears here.
.
Not often I agree with you Clarence, but I do on this point. :)

Report this post »

legallyblonde says...
10:07pm Sun 30 Sep 12

The Hoffster wrote:
Here's something for the criminals to think about:
.
"Stop hanging around with murderous sc*m (otherwise, as can be seen, you'll be handed the same sentence)."
.
No tears here.
.
Exactly - lock the b'stards up. They are tough till push comes to shove then its never them! makes me sick

Report this post »

harve333 says...
1:58pm Mon 1 Oct 12

hope none of you with the negetive comments are in a pub when a friend or member of your family murders someone , or you too can end up on a life sentence ,
a couple of points too , how do you know when someone is going to commit a murder , when you hardly know the person, and he has never commited a murder previously ,or been in prison before,
legallyblonde, perhaps you should try an anti-emetic, and do a bit more reading on the subject, before you start calling people you dont know b'astards, you trumped up prat
same goes for you
"the hoffster " what kind of name is that anyway ,

Report this post »

Jinkle says...
9:24pm Mon 1 Oct 12

Sadly ill informed and nasty commentators above did not attend the meeting and know nothing about the cases. Laura Michell and Micheal hall did not kill the victim for whose murder they have been convicted. They were not even at the scene when this happened. As for the comment about serving people right for hanging about with murderers, as far as I can gather those convicted whose stories were told in Bradford no one had a previous conviction of murder or knew any one who had a prior conviction of murder. So what are you trying to say? It is tragic when someone is killed in these circumstances and families of the victims must be traumatised to say the least. But to expect innocent people to pay with their lives in order to make families feel appeased is not the answer. It is an insult to their grief to even contemplate such a thing. However, it appears the justice system we have in place right now believes it will. Why turn one tragedy in to two in order to make it appear that justice has been served. Good luck to the innocent and my sympathy to the victims and their families.

Report this post »

Anonymous4 says...
9:45pm Mon 1 Oct 12

...all were charged with murder on the account that they was there if they was not there they would of been found not guilty as 1 member was....this whole Mitchell finding her shoes like it says on the jenga website is noncense she tried that line in court and it did not wash...maybe people jumping to defence should read this papers previous articles on the whole thing,bye all accounts Mitchell was pivotal to the whole episode an is the actual person responsible for a mans death....and instead of the family feeling sorry for them selves maybe they should read the memory sections of the paper for the last 5 years and the heart breaking tributes left bye this poor mans family.....and they all look like hillbillies rip andrew

Report this post »

Jinkle says...
10:02pm Mon 1 Oct 12

You sadly do not understand the joint enterprise principle. It is not even a law and you do not have to be at the scene let alone take part. It is used when there is little or no real evidence to convict. It is accepted that Laura was on the car park looking for her shoes. She was found guilty because of association, hence the name of the campaign group. She has had her case discussed at a justice select committee brief inquiry. Do not embarrass yourself further with silly name calling of her family and spouting past newspaper reports. Because I could ask you if you believe a past report why do you not believe a present one. I'm not willing to embark on a silly arguement. I understand this legal principle, you clearly do not. In my opinion it is wise to learn as much as you can because it can happen to anyone. And ignorance is no defence. Mitchell and Hall went willingly to the police station to help them with thier inquiries and look what happened to them. Life Sentences for trying to help in a crime they did not commit.

Report this post »

Anonymous4 says...
10:38pm Mon 1 Oct 12

So blood found on Laura's clothing,how does that happen to somebody who had no part in something?...do not embaress yourself further and drag a dead mans family through further heart ache to defend what was described as a pack of animals....going to a police station willingly in a murder case does not make you a martyr it's called common sense...reading further I see Mitchell has already had an appeal turned down and justifiably so....and I'm sure getting hit by a bus can happen to anyone not going out and been heavily involved in a murder so il save myself some time on the research of the law thanks....and as for believing one report not the other...small problem ones a police report ones what???some stupid group whos probably founded by someone in a similar situation people just carnt accept the punishment given,maybe you could do with a tragedy like andrews in your family see how you'd feel then about a loved one been murdered by **** up idiots if Laura's family had lost her I get the feeling they would be campaigning for longer sentences either way you carry on with your pointless posts an meetings meanwhile the 4 found guilty will be rotting in a jail cell for the next 13 years

Report this post »

harve333 says...
9:11am Tue 2 Oct 12

The blood found on Laura was probably when the victim grabbed her ?, earlier on , and indeed this was said during the trial, if you know so much you would probably know that though !
the joint enterprise is a lazy law,it it means the police only have to prove that you were there , and even that is extremely circumstantial,in some cases they havent even managed to prove that , ifsomeone is involved in a fight , and injures someone , i totally agree that they should be dealt with via the law , however when the law being used is outdated , and doesnt follow the normal judicial rules of proper proof , people are obviously going to feel aggrieved , as for someones earlier comment about the use of joint enterprise being used as the "gang"wouldnt grass up each other , the man who killed the victim already admitted the murder , why was everybody else charged with murder particularly as neither went back to the house nor had weapons at any stage strangely there were other people who were involved in the fight one who went to the police to give a statement was told to fcuk off by the duty constable ,
finally , nobody who has been found guilty, has ever been found innocent later have they !!!!

Report this post »

Anonymous4 says...
10:44am Tue 2 Oct 12

defence argued that andrew assaulted Laura first before he was struck....so how was there his blood....you people really are thick they were witness saying a woman was attacking a man.....3 of them....the judge blamed Laura for the whole instigation of the incident and then an appeal judge did the exact same....how can you possibly argue there defence I'm going off police/court reports your going off 1 persons side of the story....been naive saying its a lazy law blah blah blah no it really is quite simple everyone found guilty was involved in the incident...why should one person be held accountable this wasn't 1 hit and a mans died the man was severely assaulted because 1 person "jumped on his head" doesn't mean the others didn't attack him earlier your principles of your argument are pathetic and immature....every report you read says Mitchell was a key member every relevant witness says she was the aggrevator and the men charged were backing her up....I feel more for the other 3 charged,because one silly girl couldn't control her temper 3 other people are in jail and one mans dead....your all pushing the Laura didn't touch him and wanted to leave she was finding her shoes yes If that was the case it would be a wrong guilty but it isn't were you in court??laura was found guilty because she was proven to be there and involved.if her argument of not been aware would of washed she wouldn't be in a cell same as Jason if joint enterprise just like to blame anyone involved whys he sat at home today and not doing a life sentence??...you carnt have 3 key witnesses and 2 men who was assaulted there personally say she was there and involved and expect a not guilty verdict it's black and white...you idiots are obviously personally involved with the charged hence your blindness to the reality of the situation....anyways happy campaigning jengba.....just remind me once again where all your case studies are this morning......a cell!

Report this post »

harve333 says...
12:26pm Tue 2 Oct 12

legal principles are one thing , but if you didnt kill someone , why are you in jail for life , why they didnt get done for affray, bgh,abh, or at a push manslaughter etc ?
if you are such a legal eagle you would note that similar cases before and since have been dealt in this way , rather than use joint enterprise ,also it doest say in the reports that at least 2 found guilty assaulted the victim , where do you get vthat from , and yes i was at the trial , and no im not related,
also , where did the weapons come from if not jasons house , witnesses said thats where they came from , and stop calling people idiots , idiot

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree