-
Agreed with Kim Johnson that joint enterprise has been wrongly interpreted for decades, leading to wrongful convictions and a significant injustice.
-
Emphasised cross-party support for the Bill as necessary to address over-criminalization of young people, especially those from inner-city black communities.
-
Agreed that predominantly young black individuals are wrongly criminalized and spend years in prison due to joint enterprise interpretations. Highlighted the importance of this Bill for justice reform.
-
Asked whether the Labour leader supports the bill, implying concern about changes that might weaken serious crime sentencing.
-
Supported Kim Johnson's argument that this is about having a justice system that works for everyone and not letting guilty people get off easily. He noted it is seen as the biggest injustice in the criminal justice system.
-
Agreed with research indicating that joint enterprise convictions have disproportionately affected black individuals post-2016 Supreme Court judgment, supporting the need for legislative change.
-
Complimented Kim Johnson and highlighted cases of egregious injustice where joint enterprise was applied inconsistently, affecting families' lives severely.
-
Expressed concern that changes to joint enterprise laws might undermine the intent of life sentences meaning life for serious offenders.
-
Opposes the Bill and argues that current joint enterprise law is effective in ensuring justice for despicable crimes, though it may sometimes fail to secure convictions where they should be secured. He discusses cases such as Donald Banfield's murder, Kevin Patrick Lavelle's case, and Andrew Jones' death, suggesting that changes are needed to tighten the law rather than weaken it as proposed by the Bill.
-
He supports the Bill and believes there is injustice in the system at the moment. He argues that the law needs to be nudged somewhere to give justice in this country to everyone involved, regardless of race or religion. Sheerman emphasises the need for dialogue and debate to make changes constructively.
-
Butler acknowledges that joint enterprise is an important aspect of our law but highlights legitimate concerns over its application. He cites real-life examples where individuals were convicted despite limited involvement in crimes, arguing for the need to address the degree of involvement. Butler supports detailed consideration of the Bill by the Government.
-
Supports the Bill and criticises the current interpretation of joint enterprise law, stating that it has led to wrongful convictions. She mentions a case involving her constituent Reshawn Davis who served two months in prison due to this law. Butler also highlights racial bias, noting that 57% of those affected are from ethnic minority backgrounds.
-
Congratulates Kim Johnson on introducing the Bill and supports its aim to reform joint enterprise law. He highlights that the law disproportionately affects young black people and those with autism, limiting their life opportunities unjustly.
-
Congratulates Kim Johnson on her success in the private Members’ Bills ballot and highlights the importance of reviewing joint enterprise laws. Argues that joint enterprise needs to be reformed to ensure justice is fair and proportionate, citing the case R v. Jogee where joint enterprise was wrongly used for 30 years. Raises concerns about controversial cases like the Manchester 10 trial, criticising the use of drill music in convictions. Discusses JENGbA's research on women being negatively impacted by joint enterprise, highlighting a case involving Carrie who was convicted despite not engaging in violence. Acknowledges that joint enterprise has its place but calls for reform based on data from CPS indicating disproportionate impact on black defendants and young people. Emphasises the need to gather more data before legislative action to ensure proper reform.
-
Intervenes to support Janet Daby's point that people should not be judged by the music they listen to, emphasising that this is a subjective measure and unfair.
-
Intervenes to question whether the Labour Front Bench is accusing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or juries of institutional racism due to disproportionate prosecution under joint enterprise laws.
-
Explained the complexity of joint enterprise law and the high threshold for prosecution under this principle. Emphasised that secondary parties can be held as guilty if they assisted or encouraged a crime, even without being at the scene of the act.
-
Challenged the Minister for not taking interventions and asked whether he is content with the current joint enterprise situation, questioning if it aligns with the spirit of a Friday debate. Implying that there should be room for discussion.
-
Asked whether the Government could allow Second Reading to proceed even if they do not support it, in order to facilitate further examination of the issue. Highlighted procedural clarity for those watching.
-
Expressed gratitude towards contributors and urged the Minister to review his stance on supporting the Bill. Proposed adjourning the debate until another day due to time constraints.