The charity and law practice APPEAL has published a report (the “Report”) exploring the legal principle of joint enterprise, which is frequently relied upon by UK authorities to prosecute people for crimes they did not directly carry out, provided they assisted or encouraged the crime and intended for it to occur. The Report highlights that, after observing 17 criminal trials involving 63 defendants, joint enterprise liability is causing miscarriages of justice and is disproportionately impacting young Black persons, including convictions of young individuals with no demonstrable involvement in the alleged crime and long remand periods for young defendants eventually acquitted.
The full report can be accessed here.
Details
Joint enterprise, also known as complicity or secondary liability, is a long-established principle in English law. The principle allows someone who “aids, abets, counsels, or procures” (assists or encourages) an offence to be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) and sentenced as if they had committed the offence themselves. The person who carries out the offence is known as the “principal”, and those who assist or encourage are called “secondary parties” (section 8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861).
In 2016, the UK Supreme Court held that joint enterprise had been interpreted too widely by the courts and authorities, noting that a person could be guilty of an offence by simply foreseeing that the offence might occur. Therefore, the court issued a landmark decision[1] which established that a person could only be prosecuted under joint enterprise if that person intentionally assisted or encouraged the crime. Whilst the decision has been welcomed, APPEAL highlights that the law remains dangerously broad and vague. This is due to a lack of guidance on when a person is considered to have “assisted” or “encouraged” an offence, which has resulted in joint enterprise not being applied uniformly across all types of offences, which increases the risk of inconsistent and discriminatory outcomes (see page 5 of the Report). The exercise of discretion by the CPS and police is another issue here.
Key findings of the Report are as follows:
- Black people are 16 times more likely to be prosecuted under joint enterprise than white people.[2] This racial disproportionality has been attributed to police perceptions linking young Black individuals with knife crime and gang activity, rather than assessing whether their decision to prosecute under joint enterprise has been influenced by those assumptions.
- Based on 16 joint enterprise trials involving 55 defendants charged with murder or attempted murder, 14 defendants were ‘principal’ offenders and 33 were ‘secondary’ parties. Appeal highlights that 79% of those defendants were from a racially minoritised background, and 60% were Black individuals. 75% of those defendants were aged 25 or under and approximately 40% were aged 18 or younger.
- Across all 49 defendants charged with murder or attempted murder, 19 defendants (39%) were convicted of these offences. 16 defendants (33%) were acquitted of all charges, and 11 defendants (22%) were charged with lesser offences.
- The ethnic background of legal representatives, including jurors, presented a marked contrast between those of the defendants. Across all 17 trials, there were:
- 142 barristers, 78% were white and 22% consisted of ethnic minorities, with only 7% of those from minority backgrounds being Black persons.
- 204 jurors, 61% were white, 27% consisted of ethnic minorities, and 12% were Black persons.
- While the CPS has publicly confirmed that it is committed to reviewing its guidance on gang-related evidence, and has proposed action steps to address racial disproportionality, the Report highlights that limited progress has been achieved based on recent cases of joint enterprise.
- Drill music, a Black British rap genre, has been increasingly relied upon to suggest that a defendant is a member of a gang, imply bad character or criminal intent, which disproportionately impacts Black defendants.
- Social media evidence in joint enterprise cases has exposed a knowledge gap in police intelligence when seeking to understand social (mostly digital) or contextual communication between young people (e.g. ‘money phone’[3]). This has resulted in all behaviour, criminal or innocent, being interpreted or presumed to be criminal.
- Joint enterprise prosecution has a profound impact on defendants, particularly for those who are acquitted or convicted of lesser offences. The Report highlights that many defendants experience months or years in prison while awaiting trial, as well as the stigma of serious allegations, separation from their family and community, including disruptions to their education and employment, which can have a psychological impact.
- Joint enterprise trials have contributed significantly to the backlog of cases in the Crown Court, reaching a record high of 73,105 defendants in September 2024. APPEAL estimates that the total time spent on remand by all defendants was at least 18,641 days (51 years). In addition, this backlog is leading to inefficiencies in the UK’s court process, which is contributing to the UK’s “prison crisis”, as highlighted by an independent review conducted by the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, David Gauke.
Commentary
This Report highlights that despite initial statements of intent made by the CPS, police and UK courts to address the negative effects arising from joint enterprise cases, racial imbalances and miscarriages of justice remain. Based on its observations, APPEAL notes that the CPS has, at times, failed to rigorously assess whether the inferences that are being drawn are reasonable. Without adequate safeguards being implemented by the CPS, this only heightens the risk of wrongful convictions in joint enterprise cases.
The report also highlights that children and young people are disproportionately impacted by the joint enterprise charging culture. Where children and young people are jointly charged in connection with an offence, practitioners should carefully evaluate the circumstances of the case and remain vigilant for any racial presumptions or inferences, which may arise from particular types of evidence, to establish liability under the principle of joint enterprise against multiple parties. Representations calling for a review of the charging decision should be made to the CPS as early as possible in concerning cases. Appropriate experts should also be instructed to help interpret language and drill music culture.
In response to these findings, APPEAL is presently organising a roundtable in October 2025 with relevant stakeholders to determine the best way to end the inappropriate overuse of the law.
[1] The case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 9
[2] This is a finding which the report accredits to: (Liberty (2023). New figures reveal Black people 16 times more likely to be prosecuted under ‘racist’ joint enterprise laws - Liberty.).
[3] See the case of Oni and Others v R [2025] EWCA Crim 12