The tabloid newspaper reporting of the Supreme Court joint enterprise ruling is really, really bad

By on

Misguided media riles lawyers


Lawyers have formed a united front against shoddy legal news reporting, as the tabloid press took aim at the highest court in the land.

Yesterday, Lord Neuberger — on behalf of the Supreme Court — gave the much awaited judgment in the case of R v Jogee, which has fundamentally changed the law of joint enterprise.

Since the 1980s, to be convicted under the doctrine, the prosecution had to prove that the secondary offender foresaw that the principal offender might possibly intend to kill the victim, or at least cause him or her serious harm. If they could prove this — beyond reasonable doubt of course — then the secondary offender would be guilty of murder, despite not delivering the fatal blow. This became an effective way of prosecuting members of gangs involved in gang violence, but it became increasingly clear that this lax legal test promoted a catch all approach to determining criminal liability, with some people very much on the periphery of the crime slammed with hefty prison sentences.

The law has now been put on a fairer footing: the secondary offender now has to either intend to cause serious harm or death to the victim or intend to assist or encourage the principal to do this himself.

Lawyers are very happy about this common law development, but — unsurprisingly — journalists aren’t.

Stirring up fear amongst its readership, the sensationalist press coverage of yesterday’s ruling announced that the Supreme Court had thrown a life line to notorious killers, who will now be able to appeal their convictions. The infamously anti-lawyer publication the Mail Online went with the headline “Killer of Becky Watts, thugs who kicked Garry Newlove to death on his doorstep and the duo who murdered Stephen Lawrence: All could appeal after Supreme Court ruling”, while the Daily Mirror went with this.

It’s long been known that journalists tend not to be au fait with complex legal news stories, but the newspapers treatment of yesterday’s pivotal criminal law ruling has really riled the legal Twitterati.

What yesterday’s ruling did was shake up the requisite mens rea needed to engaged the joint enterprise doctrine. What it didn’t do is totally overhaul the doctrine, as the tabloids seem to be suggesting. As anonymous criminal barrister The Secret Barrister was quick to point out, there’s not much to be said for the newspapers’ claims that the Supreme Court judgment will throw a lifeline to convicted killers.

Two specific killers that won’t benefit are those responsible for the death Stephen Lawrence — though they have been given intense media coverage from both national and local papers.

Even Jogee himself — the appellant in the Supreme Court case — was told by the court that the prospects of him walking free because of this ruling are “hopeless”.

The full force of the ruling will be felt in the next few weeks and months, but the press seem to be getting pretty ahead of themselves in their suggestion that Neuberger and co have unlocked the prison doors.


Scouser of Counsel

Typical sensationalist tabloid reporting that barely scratches the surface of this (quite sensible) judgment.

But then most of the press still think that the European Court of Human a Rights is an E.U. invention that was imposed on us in 1998 by the European Commission with the full blessing of Tony and Cherie Blair!



Legal cheek mocking journalism standards?

Something about stones and glass houses springs to mind…


Boh Dear

People in glass houses shouldn’t get stoned?


ey you what?

Ahh. The irony of KK criticising other people’s journalism! (Though to be fair this is one of your better articles)



Erm, if there’s a better site for this sort of stuff perhaps you should adhere to that then you can stop p*ssing and moaning about this one ?

Just a thought my “learned” friends…..



Stop starting your sentences with “erm,” it makes you sound like an incompetent fool.



Thanks for the advice dude. Much appreciated

If you would do me the glorious honour of returning the favour and proffering some of my own :

Stop quoting people back in your posts, it makes you sound like a supercilious w@nker….



Yes, but what does Proudman think?



…says Katie King






I support the tabloids as criminal lawyers are not smart enough to practice in the city. I got a first and these lower-class barristers got a 2:1.



Sadly ChanceryPupil isn’t smart enough to post a reply which makes any sense…


Scouser of Counsel

I always love a bit of banter bait.

Rather than give riled and disproportionate responses to the above, I propose that, instead, the Haldane Society should occupy all city law firms and chambers that instruct them, seize and redistribute their collective assets to the working poor, (by which I include the criminal Bar, of which I am proud to be a member) and incarcerate every last one of those city-types in an empty Starbucks until they say “sorry” and really mean it.

*Exits whistling “the Red Flag”*



The first did not include the difference between practice and practise?


chancer tenant

Oh dear. Not a Chancery tenant then?



Yes, let’s have a go at the “tabloid press” for failing to understand what the Court of Appeal etc. hasn’t understood for 20 years…



Bravo KK.

It would assist if

1. the frighted bards hiding beneath the stone of “Anonymous’ would at least give me themselves a monicker.

2. Posts are referenced, so we ken who and or what ye are slobberin bout.


Not Anon

Bravo Anon.

It would assist if
1. The poster suggesting people assigned themselves a moniker did not make the post as an anonymous poster.


lord lyle

O that was me, Lord Lyle


Comments are closed.