Essay On Joint Enterprise Murder
"The law on Joint Enterprise is clear and unforgiving - you do not need to deal the fatal blow or even be at the actual scene of the killing to be found guilty and sent to jail". These were the words of John MacFarlane, Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police in July 2013 following the final conviction in relation to the murder of fifteen-year-old Sofyen Belamouadden at London's Victoria tube station, which remains the leading case involving English Joint Enterprise murder. The appalling killing is still heralded by many, including MacFarlane, as a prime example of how the complex doctrine of Joint Enterprise can be successfully used to prosecute crimes involving large groups of people. However, it is also a case that elucidates many
…show more content…
of the chief anxieties about the doctrine that are adopted by practitioners and academics. One such concern is that of the inconsistent nature in which the law can be applied. This was demonstrated by the fact that one of the seventeen convicted teenagers received the mandatory life sentence for murder despite being stood outside of the station - albeit in possession of a samurai sword - as the murder took place. Meanwhile, one of the accused directly involved in the beating of Belamouadden received, a lesser, manslaughter conviction. Such inconsistency has been blamed by many commentators as the result of a lack of clarity in establishing culpability, often resulting in the overall verdict being guided by the personal opinion of each judge. This has ushered leading Human Rights Barrister Peter Herbert to claim that the absence codification has led to "a [widespread] misapplication of the basic principles [of Joint Enterprise]". In accordance with the confusion over sentencing lies parasitical accessorial liability. This is the principle concerning joint criminal ventures (e.g. Armed Robbery or Affray) where any member of the group realizes or foresees the possibility that one of them may commit an additional crime in the course of it (for example, murder). If so, then all are also guilty of the secondary crime and evidence that they actually took part in it is not required. Although no one associated with the law would deny that the persons involved in the primary crime must possess a degree of criminality for the secondary offence (e.g. through incitement), many disagree with the fact that murder carries an automatic life sentence, regardless of one's role in the crime. This prompted Lord Phillips to suggest a possible remedy in a 2008 lecture; namely that "Justice would call for some gradation of [the] offence[s]" committed by each party. One of the foremost arguments for tolerating the current state of Joint Enterprise law is that it is central to deterring young people from getting involved in criminal gang activity. However, there is "real danger in justifying the joint-enterprise doctrine on the basis that it sends a signal or delivers a wider social message, rather than on the basis that it is necessary to ensure people are found guilty of offences in accordance with the law as it stands", as put by chair of the Justice Select Committee Alan Beith . It is important that legal principles remain in the legal sphere and do not become an application of public policy. Also, since it has become clear that only a small proportion of young people are aware of the doctrine, together with the fact that those who are involved in criminal activities "care absolutely not a jot" - as put by Michael Turner QC who specializes in cases of Joint Enterprise - for the implications it is no surprise that this justification has its skeptics. As a result, whilst those involved in shaping public policy may wish to see the common law doctrine tolerated, there appears to be a general consensus within the legal and academic community that the current state of the law needs to be reformed or reviewed. However, the reforms themselves are fiercely debated and it is important to establish the most appropriate way forward in accordance with the chief concerns that border the law of Joint Enterprise.
Exploring the Issues
The Mental Element, has the net been cast too wide?
According to a 2014 survey of legal professionals by the Bureau of Investigative journalism (TBIJ) the most worrying element of Joint Enterprise murder convictions is that "the necessary fault/mens rea for the offence does not have to be fully established for all defendants". The development of case law has created some tests that are required to convict a defendant of murder. Since Chan Wing-Siu v R (1985) all that has been needed to secure a conviction is proof of an awareness or foresight that their co-defendant might cause serious harm to the victim. Thus, due to the high minimum tariffs associated with the mandatory life sentence for murder, no distinction is drawn between those who actually committed the offence and those who did not intend for the offence to happen. Dr. Ben Crewe at the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University cites how "the threshold for culpability is so low, but the penalties are so high", which was demonstrated most notably by the conviction of Wayne Collins following the 2011 London Riots. Collins was jailed for eighteen years after been found guilty of rioting and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, despite never holding the weapon and CCTV revealing that he took no active part in the rioting or burning of a nearby pub. However, it was held by Appeal judge Leveson that "Not only did Collins encourage by his presence but, on the jury’s verdicts, he intended to do so in relation to the riot, the arson and the use of firearms directed at the police: this was participation in extremely serious offending". In many ways, relative to Crewe's statement, Collins received an extortionately high penalty for simply being present at the scene of a crime. In spite of this, one could argue that the broad threshold of culpability is not as negative a thing as Crewe suggests. For many years, particularly after Lord Mustil's House of Lords judgment in Powell and English (1997) Joint Enterprise has been strongly advocated as a deterrent of gang-based crime and an application of public policy. However, with a reduction of only eighteen Joint Enterprise cases between 2012 and 2013 it is hard to believe that Joint Enterprise is truly effective in reducing such crime, especially when coupled with the fact that "young people show a sense of surprise and shock when questioned about it. Regardless of whether or not the low threshold is capable of producing miscarriages of justice, it does lead one to question how joint enterprise can be so essential to public policy, despite the fact that very few young people are aware of the law. Whilst for those who do gain awareness, the low threshold of culpability, when added to research indicating that only 10% of homicide appeals are quashed means that the majority of those charged with Joint Enterprise liability serve extended periods of time behind bars before being able to act upon their new knowledge. There is no doubt that reform of the mental element would allow more young people to avoid reoccurring encounters with joint enterprise. However, some critics may argue that whilst law reform is important to the proper enshrinement of the rule of law, education reform in terms of the public awareness of joint enterprise is just as essential and if successful could suspend the need for such radical legislative reform.
The Mandatory Life Sentence, are high minimum tariffs breeding injustice?
Once convicted of murder, regardless of the role that is actually played, one is liable to receive a life sentence.
Although the judge presiding can use discretion to award more lenient sentences to those who are deemed to have contributed less to the murder, they are restricted to a certain extent by minimum tariffs that are dependent on the age of the convicted and entrenched by legislation. For example, the minimum term of sentencing that can be received for murder with a firearm, before release is considered, stands at thirty years. Similarly, in 2010 the minimum tariff for murder involving a knife was increased from fifteen to twenty-five years. As English law enforcement seems to be developing a more authoritarian way of thinking, having a law where there is no distinct differentiation between the primary offender and the accessory inevitably breeds injustice and is not reasonable. As a result "we have people serving life sentences for offences that they did not [commit], did not foresee and did not intend to happen" . But is this a bad thing? In 2011 Lord Judge summed up the ambiguous nature of establishing the primary causation of murder, questioning "Who is guilty of murder when four people surround somebody? The one who kicks? The one that suddenly produces the knife that is the offensive weapon that causes the death? The one who eggs on the man who has the knife? The one who says to him, 'For God's Sake!'...it is one thing to be a party to punching somebody, and …show more content…
quite another to be party to potentially using a deadly weapon." Thus, if it cannot be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' that the input of any person who is deemed a party to the murder's actions did not partially cause the murder then why should they not also be convicted for the offence that they - in part - caused. Many practitioners also highlight the role of the media in making the law seem more oppressive and less successful than it actually is. Former solicitor Andrew Keogh highlights how we have "some very extreme cases involving people of the periphery of the crime that get a lot of publicity [...] but you don't get many cases where you are uncomfortable with the charge". However, in medical research law we do not condemn the interests of one patient for the interests of many, so why in criminal law should the justice system punish the defendants in these "extreme cases" and do nothing to incur a safety net? Regardless, it cannot be denied that "the criminality of those who merely see the risk involved is markedly less than those who actually inflict injury with intent of killing or causing serious harm”. As a result some gradation of offence would be more appropriate. This would not only protect those who are on the periphery of the crime from receiving disproportionately long sentences, but would also clarify the definition of murder, making an example of those who do so. As opposed to the current system where we have accessorial offenders, often due to age, serving more time in prison than the primary offender.
Clarity of the law, Is the evolutionary state of common law too complex?
The law of Joint Enterprise has never been enshrined in statute.
It remains a law that is constantly evolving through the setting of new case precedents. As a result, the range of principles that must be assessed by a judge and jury often makes cases complex and prone to inconsistency. The complexity of the law has prompted some professionals to liken the outcomes of cases to chance, as solicitor Greg Stewart claims that "[Joint Enterprise] covers such a wide range of elements of behaviour and intent that it becomes a lottery if you are convicted or not". In support of this, there is clear evidence that sometimes the logic of the doctrine can be hard for juries to follow. In 2011 Arfan Rafiq was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years for his role in a murder. Rafiq was alleged to have supplied another man with a machine gun that was then used to kill Nasar Hussain. Rafiq was trialed on two accounts under the doctrine: possession of a prohibited firearm and murder. The jury went on to find Rafiq guilty of murder, but acquitted him of the firearm charge. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the previous judgment on the basis that the jury’s decisions were 'irreconcilable' and unclear, also condemning the fact that "the appellant is in the position of not knowing on what basis he could have been convicted by the jury" . It is clear that when the justice system itself cannot be said to be fully confident in dispensing justice
then the law must be made more clear and easier to follow. Although some practitioners assert that the key issue remains "what flexibility the judge has in addressing issues when it comes to sentencing”, there can be no doubt that even if the sentencing issue was to be addressed the complexity of the law would still lead juries into dealings of injustice. This is made all the more poignant in light of evidence of the constant appeals against the doctrine, as TBIJ research revealed that just over 22% of all Court of Appeal rulings in 2013 related to joint enterprise cases. If the English justice system is to retain some integrity in this area it will not do so by limiting the damages (sentencing) of injustice. Instead, it should do everything is can to eradicate the injustice in the first instance.
What has been done so far?
C.P.S Guidelines and charging for lesser crimes
Following the 2012 Justice Committee report that called for wholesale changes to the manner in which those charged under Joint Enterprise are prosecuted, Kier Starmer - Director of Public Prosecutions - drew up guidelines to help prosecutors with what offences suspects with minor roles in group assaults should be charged.
In many ways this was a big step forward in reducing the number of cases where suspects were charged with murder despite being on the periphery of the scene, taking no part in the actual assault themselves. This was the case for Renee John Baptiste who was charged with murder despite being outside of the park where the murder of Martin Dinnegan took place in June 2007. Therefore, it was a relief for many that one of the key warnings in the new guidelines read that "mere association with an offender is never enough to create liability" followed by the requirement that a suspect must offer "assistance or encouragement". The guidelines have also gone some way to softening the impact of the mandatory life sentence by guiding prosecutors to "consider a less serious charge than that charged against the principle [offender]". In theory this should have gone some way to reducing the problem of life sentences being awarded to accessorial offenders. Indeed, the results of the guidelines appear promising, although it is too early to be sure of a permanent impact. CPS case file evidence from 2012 illustrates that out of 470 defendants: 210 were charged with a lesser offence alongside manslaughter/murder convictions, whilst 67 only received lesser offences. Coinciding with this, TBIJ research suggests that there has been a marked increase in the awarding of lesser charges in murder cases involving four or more defendants. However, though there has been an increase it remains unclear as to whether the increase has risen from juries convicting more defendants of both murder/manslaughter and lesser convictions such as affray or GBH rather than solely the latter. Consequently, although initial results of the CPS guidelines seem encouraging it should not be up to the discretion of the CPS to decide when or when not to pursue a lesser conviction and reform towards a more codified testing procedure remains essential.
Inchoate Offences
Similarly to the CPS guidelines on 'lesser offences', in 2007 the Serious Crime Act introduced a range of inchoate offences in order to replace the single charge of incitement. This allows those who are accessories in Joint Enterprise cases to be charged with alternative convictions of "encouragement" or "assisting an offence", as opposed to the principle offence of murder and the consequent life sentence that it brings. However, despite an eleven-fold increase in inchoate charges before magistrates courts between 2009 and 2013 the 143 cases brought forward in 2013 represent just a miniscule fraction of magistrate court cases and thus offer very little in the way of improving the state of the law when it comes to Joint Enterprise liability, and that is even if any of these were Joint Enterprise cases anyway.
Educating Young People
From the outset, education has been seen a central theme to Joint Enterprise. Previous evidence has shown that knowledge of the law itself in schools is at a minimum, if not non-existant. Therefore, charging people for offences that they were not aware they were committing seems to be as much an injustice as the extortionate sentences received by those who are eventually convicted. Thus, in the months following the murder of Michael Campbell outside a West London pub in 2005, resulting in a murder conviction for Kenneth Alexander, despite not taking part in the attack or wielding the knife, the Metropolitan Police established the 'Joint Enterprise Education Programme'. The programme aims to educate young people aged between twelve and seventeen of the meaning of Joint Enterprise Liability. Brian Fitzpatrick, who currently heads the programme, has claimed that he and his volunteers have now spoken to between twenty and thirty thousand young people since mid-2011. However, with an estimated 7.95 million young people aged between ten and nineteen and roughly 170,000 young people arrested for notifiable offences in 2011/12 in England and Wales, it is clear that educating 7,000 young people a year is simply not enough. If the message that most people get really is that "they didn’t realize they had put themselves in jeopardy" then the current education system is itself breeding injustice.
of the chief anxieties about the doctrine that are adopted by practitioners and academics. One such concern is that of the inconsistent nature in which the law can be applied. This was demonstrated by the fact that one of the seventeen convicted teenagers received the mandatory life sentence for murder despite being stood outside of the station - albeit in possession of a samurai sword - as the murder took place. Meanwhile, one of the accused directly involved in the beating of Belamouadden received, a lesser, manslaughter conviction. Such inconsistency has been blamed by many commentators as the result of a lack of clarity in establishing culpability, often resulting in the overall verdict being guided by the personal opinion of each judge. This has ushered leading Human Rights Barrister Peter Herbert to claim that the absence codification has led to "a [widespread] misapplication of the basic principles [of Joint Enterprise]". In accordance with the confusion over sentencing lies parasitical accessorial liability. This is the principle concerning joint criminal ventures (e.g. Armed Robbery or Affray) where any member of the group realizes or foresees the possibility that one of them may commit an additional crime in the course of it (for example, murder). If so, then all are also guilty of the secondary crime and evidence that they actually took part in it is not required. Although no one associated with the law would deny that the persons involved in the primary crime must possess a degree of criminality for the secondary offence (e.g. through incitement), many disagree with the fact that murder carries an automatic life sentence, regardless of one's role in the crime. This prompted Lord Phillips to suggest a possible remedy in a 2008 lecture; namely that "Justice would call for some gradation of [the] offence[s]" committed by each party. One of the foremost arguments for tolerating the current state of Joint Enterprise law is that it is central to deterring young people from getting involved in criminal gang activity. However, there is "real danger in justifying the joint-enterprise doctrine on the basis that it sends a signal or delivers a wider social message, rather than on the basis that it is necessary to ensure people are found guilty of offences in accordance with the law as it stands", as put by chair of the Justice Select Committee Alan Beith . It is important that legal principles remain in the legal sphere and do not become an application of public policy. Also, since it has become clear that only a small proportion of young people are aware of the doctrine, together with the fact that those who are involved in criminal activities "care absolutely not a jot" - as put by Michael Turner QC who specializes in cases of Joint Enterprise - for the implications it is no surprise that this justification has its skeptics. As a result, whilst those involved in shaping public policy may wish to see the common law doctrine tolerated, there appears to be a general consensus within the legal and academic community that the current state of the law needs to be reformed or reviewed. However, the reforms themselves are fiercely debated and it is important to establish the most appropriate way forward in accordance with the chief concerns that border the law of Joint Enterprise.
Exploring the Issues
The Mental Element, has the net been cast too wide?
According to a 2014 survey of legal professionals by the Bureau of Investigative journalism (TBIJ) the most worrying element of Joint Enterprise murder convictions is that "the necessary fault/mens rea for the offence does not have to be fully established for all defendants". The development of case law has created some tests that are required to convict a defendant of murder. Since Chan Wing-Siu v R (1985) all that has been needed to secure a conviction is proof of an awareness or foresight that their co-defendant might cause serious harm to the victim. Thus, due to the high minimum tariffs associated with the mandatory life sentence for murder, no distinction is drawn between those who actually committed the offence and those who did not intend for the offence to happen. Dr. Ben Crewe at the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University cites how "the threshold for culpability is so low, but the penalties are so high", which was demonstrated most notably by the conviction of Wayne Collins following the 2011 London Riots. Collins was jailed for eighteen years after been found guilty of rioting and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, despite never holding the weapon and CCTV revealing that he took no active part in the rioting or burning of a nearby pub. However, it was held by Appeal judge Leveson that "Not only did Collins encourage by his presence but, on the jury’s verdicts, he intended to do so in relation to the riot, the arson and the use of firearms directed at the police: this was participation in extremely serious offending". In many ways, relative to Crewe's statement, Collins received an extortionately high penalty for simply being present at the scene of a crime. In spite of this, one could argue that the broad threshold of culpability is not as negative a thing as Crewe suggests. For many years, particularly after Lord Mustil's House of Lords judgment in Powell and English (1997) Joint Enterprise has been strongly advocated as a deterrent of gang-based crime and an application of public policy. However, with a reduction of only eighteen Joint Enterprise cases between 2012 and 2013 it is hard to believe that Joint Enterprise is truly effective in reducing such crime, especially when coupled with the fact that "young people show a sense of surprise and shock when questioned about it. Regardless of whether or not the low threshold is capable of producing miscarriages of justice, it does lead one to question how joint enterprise can be so essential to public policy, despite the fact that very few young people are aware of the law. Whilst for those who do gain awareness, the low threshold of culpability, when added to research indicating that only 10% of homicide appeals are quashed means that the majority of those charged with Joint Enterprise liability serve extended periods of time behind bars before being able to act upon their new knowledge. There is no doubt that reform of the mental element would allow more young people to avoid reoccurring encounters with joint enterprise. However, some critics may argue that whilst law reform is important to the proper enshrinement of the rule of law, education reform in terms of the public awareness of joint enterprise is just as essential and if successful could suspend the need for such radical legislative reform.
The Mandatory Life Sentence, are high minimum tariffs breeding injustice?
Once convicted of murder, regardless of the role that is actually played, one is liable to receive a life sentence.
Although the judge presiding can use discretion to award more lenient sentences to those who are deemed to have contributed less to the murder, they are restricted to a certain extent by minimum tariffs that are dependent on the age of the convicted and entrenched by legislation. For example, the minimum term of sentencing that can be received for murder with a firearm, before release is considered, stands at thirty years. Similarly, in 2010 the minimum tariff for murder involving a knife was increased from fifteen to twenty-five years. As English law enforcement seems to be developing a more authoritarian way of thinking, having a law where there is no distinct differentiation between the primary offender and the accessory inevitably breeds injustice and is not reasonable. As a result "we have people serving life sentences for offences that they did not [commit], did not foresee and did not intend to happen" . But is this a bad thing? In 2011 Lord Judge summed up the ambiguous nature of establishing the primary causation of murder, questioning "Who is guilty of murder when four people surround somebody? The one who kicks? The one that suddenly produces the knife that is the offensive weapon that causes the death? The one who eggs on the man who has the knife? The one who says to him, 'For God's Sake!'...it is one thing to be a party to punching somebody, and …show more content…
quite another to be party to potentially using a deadly weapon." Thus, if it cannot be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' that the input of any person who is deemed a party to the murder's actions did not partially cause the murder then why should they not also be convicted for the offence that they - in part - caused. Many practitioners also highlight the role of the media in making the law seem more oppressive and less successful than it actually is. Former solicitor Andrew Keogh highlights how we have "some very extreme cases involving people of the periphery of the crime that get a lot of publicity [...] but you don't get many cases where you are uncomfortable with the charge". However, in medical research law we do not condemn the interests of one patient for the interests of many, so why in criminal law should the justice system punish the defendants in these "extreme cases" and do nothing to incur a safety net? Regardless, it cannot be denied that "the criminality of those who merely see the risk involved is markedly less than those who actually inflict injury with intent of killing or causing serious harm”. As a result some gradation of offence would be more appropriate. This would not only protect those who are on the periphery of the crime from receiving disproportionately long sentences, but would also clarify the definition of murder, making an example of those who do so. As opposed to the current system where we have accessorial offenders, often due to age, serving more time in prison than the primary offender.
Clarity of the law, Is the evolutionary state of common law too complex?
The law of Joint Enterprise has never been enshrined in statute.
It remains a law that is constantly evolving through the setting of new case precedents. As a result, the range of principles that must be assessed by a judge and jury often makes cases complex and prone to inconsistency. The complexity of the law has prompted some professionals to liken the outcomes of cases to chance, as solicitor Greg Stewart claims that "[Joint Enterprise] covers such a wide range of elements of behaviour and intent that it becomes a lottery if you are convicted or not". In support of this, there is clear evidence that sometimes the logic of the doctrine can be hard for juries to follow. In 2011 Arfan Rafiq was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years for his role in a murder. Rafiq was alleged to have supplied another man with a machine gun that was then used to kill Nasar Hussain. Rafiq was trialed on two accounts under the doctrine: possession of a prohibited firearm and murder. The jury went on to find Rafiq guilty of murder, but acquitted him of the firearm charge. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the previous judgment on the basis that the jury’s decisions were 'irreconcilable' and unclear, also condemning the fact that "the appellant is in the position of not knowing on what basis he could have been convicted by the jury" . It is clear that when the justice system itself cannot be said to be fully confident in dispensing justice
then the law must be made more clear and easier to follow. Although some practitioners assert that the key issue remains "what flexibility the judge has in addressing issues when it comes to sentencing”, there can be no doubt that even if the sentencing issue was to be addressed the complexity of the law would still lead juries into dealings of injustice. This is made all the more poignant in light of evidence of the constant appeals against the doctrine, as TBIJ research revealed that just over 22% of all Court of Appeal rulings in 2013 related to joint enterprise cases. If the English justice system is to retain some integrity in this area it will not do so by limiting the damages (sentencing) of injustice. Instead, it should do everything is can to eradicate the injustice in the first instance.
What has been done so far?
C.P.S Guidelines and charging for lesser crimes
Following the 2012 Justice Committee report that called for wholesale changes to the manner in which those charged under Joint Enterprise are prosecuted, Kier Starmer - Director of Public Prosecutions - drew up guidelines to help prosecutors with what offences suspects with minor roles in group assaults should be charged.
In many ways this was a big step forward in reducing the number of cases where suspects were charged with murder despite being on the periphery of the scene, taking no part in the actual assault themselves. This was the case for Renee John Baptiste who was charged with murder despite being outside of the park where the murder of Martin Dinnegan took place in June 2007. Therefore, it was a relief for many that one of the key warnings in the new guidelines read that "mere association with an offender is never enough to create liability" followed by the requirement that a suspect must offer "assistance or encouragement". The guidelines have also gone some way to softening the impact of the mandatory life sentence by guiding prosecutors to "consider a less serious charge than that charged against the principle [offender]". In theory this should have gone some way to reducing the problem of life sentences being awarded to accessorial offenders. Indeed, the results of the guidelines appear promising, although it is too early to be sure of a permanent impact. CPS case file evidence from 2012 illustrates that out of 470 defendants: 210 were charged with a lesser offence alongside manslaughter/murder convictions, whilst 67 only received lesser offences. Coinciding with this, TBIJ research suggests that there has been a marked increase in the awarding of lesser charges in murder cases involving four or more defendants. However, though there has been an increase it remains unclear as to whether the increase has risen from juries convicting more defendants of both murder/manslaughter and lesser convictions such as affray or GBH rather than solely the latter. Consequently, although initial results of the CPS guidelines seem encouraging it should not be up to the discretion of the CPS to decide when or when not to pursue a lesser conviction and reform towards a more codified testing procedure remains essential.
Inchoate Offences
Similarly to the CPS guidelines on 'lesser offences', in 2007 the Serious Crime Act introduced a range of inchoate offences in order to replace the single charge of incitement. This allows those who are accessories in Joint Enterprise cases to be charged with alternative convictions of "encouragement" or "assisting an offence", as opposed to the principle offence of murder and the consequent life sentence that it brings. However, despite an eleven-fold increase in inchoate charges before magistrates courts between 2009 and 2013 the 143 cases brought forward in 2013 represent just a miniscule fraction of magistrate court cases and thus offer very little in the way of improving the state of the law when it comes to Joint Enterprise liability, and that is even if any of these were Joint Enterprise cases anyway.
Educating Young People
From the outset, education has been seen a central theme to Joint Enterprise. Previous evidence has shown that knowledge of the law itself in schools is at a minimum, if not non-existant. Therefore, charging people for offences that they were not aware they were committing seems to be as much an injustice as the extortionate sentences received by those who are eventually convicted. Thus, in the months following the murder of Michael Campbell outside a West London pub in 2005, resulting in a murder conviction for Kenneth Alexander, despite not taking part in the attack or wielding the knife, the Metropolitan Police established the 'Joint Enterprise Education Programme'. The programme aims to educate young people aged between twelve and seventeen of the meaning of Joint Enterprise Liability. Brian Fitzpatrick, who currently heads the programme, has claimed that he and his volunteers have now spoken to between twenty and thirty thousand young people since mid-2011. However, with an estimated 7.95 million young people aged between ten and nineteen and roughly 170,000 young people arrested for notifiable offences in 2011/12 in England and Wales, it is clear that educating 7,000 young people a year is simply not enough. If the message that most people get really is that "they didn’t realize they had put themselves in jeopardy" then the current education system is itself breeding injustice.