Changes in the law on secondary participation in joint criminal enterprises since 1985 have been driven by a judicial policy aiming to counter a perceived threat to social order from criminal groups. This article argues that these changes enable prosecutions to succeed through the use of tenuous forms of evidence and epistemologically unjustified inferences which juries are permitted to draw from such evidence, a combination which effectively lowers the standard of proof. The lowering of the standard of proof has two effects. First, it makes it easier and cheaper for police investigators to construct prosecution cases, and secondly, it is likely to result in injustice. Many claims have been made that it does indeed have the latter effect. The police view the joint enterprise doctrine as a useful tool, and other parts of the criminal justice system are willing to collaborate with the development and refinement of the tool. This article explores the reasons why support is given to a development which requires such a drastic change in accepted legal standards. The Law Commission justifies these changes by its adoption of a theory that an individual who joins a group engaged in criminal activity changes her or his normative position to that of the group, and so may be held responsible for any crimes committed by any member of the group. However, the theory is unsupported by empirical research. Rather it is grounded in the findings of courts trying cases in which the joint enterprise doctrine is applied, and has its origins in theories which assign to criminal courts the responsibility to identify certain groups as enemies of society. Its application produces the populist characterisation of casual groups of young people as 'wolf packs'.

No abstract

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. This chapter examines domestic legislation. Domestic legislation is created by Parliament, which consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarch. It is divided into primary legislation and secondary legislation. Primary legislation takes the form of ‘Acts of Parliament’, commonly referred to as ‘statutes’. Statutes can cover a vast variety of laws including criminal law, land law, contract law, and many others. Meanwhile, secondary legislation—also known as delegated legislation or subordinate legislation—is the most common instrument for implementing change within the UK. Parliament has neither the time, the resources, nor the expertise to deal with certain matters. It is for these reasons that the majority of legislation is made outside of Parliament. Accordingly, Parliament may delegate such powers, through an Act of Parliament to other bodies and institutions to implement. Such bodies often include the Privy Council, government ministers, local authorities, and other regulatory agencies.

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. This chapter looks at the multitude of different professionals, both legal and lay, in the English legal system (ELS). Legal professionals, often referred to as ‘lawyers’, includes such individuals as solicitors, barristers, legal executives, and paralegals. Barristers and solicitors were traditionally two very distinct roles in the ELS. Nowadays, a fusion of roles has occurred, meaning that the two professions are not as different as they formerly were. Meanwhile, judiciary refers to the various judicial ‘offices’ and ‘office-holders’. Law officers are the individuals responsible for the operation of the ELS and include such persons as the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Court staff are the individuals involved in the day-to-day running of the ELS and include such persons as clerks, ushers, legal advisers, and many other persons. Finally, laypersons refer to a special class of individuals—namely magistrates and juries responsible for trying cases in the Crown Court and magistrates’ court respectively.

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. This chapter addresses funding access to the English legal system. Funding legal services may be provided publicly or privately. Public funding relates to funding available from the state, whereas private funding specifically refers to the assets and monetary resources available to that specific individual. Only certain individuals are entitled to benefit from public funding, whilst all persons can, in theory, privately fund legal services. Moreover, legal aid—meaning state-funded assistance in legal matters—is available in both criminal and civil cases but is restricted to narrow circumstances and types of cases. The availability of legal aid depends on several tests set by the government. Where legal aid is not available and the individual cannot privately fund their case, pro bono institutions may be available to provide advice.