Jogee: Killer at the centre of joint enterprise law overhaul found GUILTY of manslaughter

By on

But not guilty of his original conviction for murder


The killer whose name will forever be associated with one of the most important Supreme Court decisions ever has been found not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter instead.

Ameen Jogee was convicted of the murder of a police officer, Paul Fyfe, under the doctrine of joint enterprise, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years. The doctrine states all participants in a joint criminal enterprise will be criminally liable for the harm that results from that enterprise, even if the defendant did not ‘pull the trigger’.

Represented by legal twitterati heavyweights Adam Wagner and Felicity Gerry QC, Jogee challenged the doctrine all the way up to the Supreme Court, arguing that the mens rea as it then stood was unjust.

And the highest court in the land agreed with him. The justices said the law on this controversial doctrine had been “wrongly interpreted” and overruled more than 30 years of case law. This sparked a pretty major law degree syllabus shake-up, and also some pretty naff tabloid reporting.

The decision left the fate of many offenders convicted under the doctrine hanging in the balance, including Jogee himself. The Supreme Court did not overrule his conviction and instead sent the case back to the court of first instance, where it was retried.

After more than 13 hours of deliberations, the jury cleared the defendant of murder at Nottingham Crown Court last Friday. This afternoon the jury returned their final verdict, unanimously finding 27-year-old Jogee guilty of manslaughter.

He will be sentenced next Monday.



‘some pretty naff tabloid reporting’.

Glass houses Katie….



Yes. Like the word overruled. Or ‘the court of first instance’; it couldn’t go elsewhere if it were to be ‘sent back’.

Picky? Not considering the audience of this site or when the author accuses people of ‘pretty naff reporting’.

For all the complaints about the BPTC and LPC (many justified) I doubt Katie would make the same errors post either. It shows up the idea that LLB graduates can be plonked into training with LLBs/GDLs as they currently are.



Strikes me as a situation whereby the proverbial pot is accusing the kettle of having BAME origins, non?



Leave us out of this.

Sincerely, BAME people.



Diversity innit bruv. U is about 2 b enriched



Legal twitterati heavyweights do me a favour



Forget Chambers or the opinions of colleagues – the only measure of a barrister’s worth is the frequency of their Tweets.



Shouldn’t it be Felicity Gerry QC & Adam Wagner?




So much petty rudeness as usual.

Thank you for the red arrows in advance 🙂 I don’t care.



I up-arrowed you old fruit.

The sneering pedantic bellendery that doth masquerade as fashionable on here is quite summat else.

Down arrow away melts….:)



Interloper – I like you, you seem handsome



This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.



No remarks about the content of the article. Just rudeness directed at the author. What a horrible place this is.


Adam Deen

I dated this guys youngest sister LOLLLL

A.J is well known in Leicester.

Thank god i made it too Oxford.



*to Oxford….Wow.


Adam Deen

You’ll have to excuse my grammar, I haven’t even started my degree yet! English is my third language. Pistols at dawn, dear boy.


Ciaran Goggins

Wagner isn’t a legal heavyweight, he did not understand R v Evans (Ched Evans case) nor aspects of DNA legislation in UK’s defeat at ECtHR 2011. Notice the bruising around Jogee’s eyes, he must have slipped in his cell.



This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.


Comments are closed.