Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-70)
Chair: Mrs Taylor and
Mrs Jones, welcome to you both. We very much appreciate your coming
in front of the Committee today. We know that you have both had
dreadful family experiences having been victims of crime and,
therefore, that you have a very important perspective on these
matters. I will ask Yasmin Qureshi to ask some questions.
Q40 Yasmin Qureshi:
Thank you very much for coming to the Committee. You heard the
Director of Public Prosecutions talk about how the CPS approach
the issue of joint enterprise. How has a lack of clarity about
the doctrine of joint enterprise affected your families and the
crimes against members of your families? I do not mean your families
but generally.
Chair: I just have to
give the warning that as a Committee we cannot investigate individual
cases, only the broad experience. You have also now met many other
people with similar experience, have you not?
Christine Jones:
My case involved my son Andrew and a gang. The CPS said they couldn't
take it into court because it wasn't in the public interest. I
can't understand how some people can be important and some can't.
Why isn't everybody in the public interest? At the end of the
day, that person is dead the same as a person who is in the public
interest is dead. Why can't the person who has no public interest
have justice the same as the person who has?
Q41 Chair: Was
that the full extent of what they told you?
Christine Jones:
Yes, it was.
Q42 Chair: That
it was not in the public interest?
Christine Jones:
It was, yes.
Q43 Yasmin Qureshi:
Did they go into any details as to why they said it was not in
the public interest?
Christine Jones:
They said it was not in the public interest to take it back into
court.
Q44 Yasmin Qureshi:
To take it back into court?
Christine Jones:
Yes. Only one out of 10 went into court and he walked out of court
for lack of evidence. When we asked why they couldn't all go in,
they said it wasn't in the public interest.
Jean Taylor: Andrew
Jones, the son of Christine Jones, was on his own walking down
a side street in Liverpool city centre. He was making his way
home after an evening out with his friends. He was confronted
on that side street by a group of youths, and in that group were
two females. They decided to pick on Andrew. One punched him—that
was witnessed—while another one stamped on his head as he
lay on the floor dying of his injuries. All members of that group
were then held by a Merseyside police officer who came along.
He knew the whole group was there, and someone in that group,
no matter which one at that stage, should have been taken into
custody and spoken to, because the officer knew that Andrew was
seriously ill or dying on the floor. Instead, the officer got
hold of one of them and said to that group, "I saw you strike
a blow at this gentleman." The female who was the girlfriend
of the perpetrator said, "No. I think you've made a mistake",
and the officer let that perpetrator go. It wasn't until several
days later that they were all rearrested. DNA evidence was lost.
My argument here is that joint enterprise has been
used in more serious high-profile cases. That is a word we do
not like to use in Families Fighting for Justice. In a high-profile
case, all of them would have been arrested and no doubt charged
with joint enterprise. My argument is that, with a joint enterprise,
it is either a shared intention or foresight. In the case of Andrew
Jones, it was not a shared intention but foresight, because prior
to the perpetrator punching him, he frogmarched him backwards
down that side road. With the foresight of that group, the intention
was to cause Andrew Jones some harm.
I fail to see how joint enterprise works in those
cases where they are all taken in just for standing by and watching
and yet in this case joint enterprise wasn't used. We cannot allow
joint enterprise. Law must be seen to be a fair law in this country.
I am not here to judge any particular case and say joint enterprise
should or should not have been used. My argument here is, "What
about the likes of this group who did that?" There are many
cases up and down this country where a group or gang has been
allowed to walk free, and still do so today. They have not been
charged with joint enterprise.
We know this law is 300 years old; we know it is
time for change. We know there is a growing gang culture. At the
moment, Families Fighting for Justice are delivering workshops
up and down Liverpool. We believe that those workshops deter youngsters
from gang culture. It is not done by delivering it through the
police but through families who know what is needed and who carry
the pain of losing a loved one.
Furthermore, to go back to joint enterprise, I strongly
believe that it is time for change with joint enterprise. I am
not saying we should do away with it altogether. Maybe we could
introduce another law or tweak the one that is there already.
It is 300 years old and it is time for change. We cannot say that,
because one group is more in the media light, shall we say, it
should be charged with joint enterprise. Yet some of them may
not be members of a gang. I remember that when I had a meeting
with Iain Duncan Smith, the question was asked how we could say
they are part of a gang. We can easily say they are part of a
gang. The local police will know whether they are part of a gang.
They have a uniform that we all know they wear to say they are
part of a gang. We know what they wear and know if they are part
of a gang. There are groups that in some cases are not part of
a gang, but in more high-profile cases, they are charged with
joint enterprise. Some have just stood idly by watching, maybe
afraid to give evidence. Should they have been charged with aiding
and abetting?
Q45 Chair: You
have made the point several times that high-profile cases have
involved joint enterprise. It could be that we are aware of those
cases because they have a lot of media attention.
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q46 Chair: Do
you have any reason to believe that something about the high-profile
nature of the case leads prosecutors to use joint enterprise,
rather than simply different practice between different police
forces and different branches of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Jean Taylor: Yes,
I do.
Q47 Chair: You
think that in some way prosecutors are attracted to use joint
enterprise if they are aware that there is a big media interest
in the case.
Jean Taylor: Yes,
I do.
Q48 Yasmin Qureshi:
What specific reforms would you like to see to the doctrine of
joint enterprise?
Jean Taylor: For
instance, what if there was not premeditation in the case of Andrew
Jones? Take that family and the Lavelle family in my group. Kevin
Lavelle was left dying while he was on the phone to his fiancée.
That group, again, was allowed to walk free. Maybe we need to
introduce a new law; maybe we need Andrew's Law; maybe joint enterprise
needs to change. It most definitely needs to change. As Sir Alan
says, it is so easy to have high-profile cases where police officers
say, "Okay. They're shouting. It's in the public interest.
Let's charge them all with joint enterprise." The law must
be seen to be fair. I am afraid that if it is there to be used
some will use it that way, and that is wrong.
Q49 Yasmin Qureshi:
I am only exploring this question with you. Is there a possibility
that, because there has not been proper communication between
the families of the victims and the Crown Prosecution Service
or the police to explain why they took a specific decision in
a specific case, perhaps this could be the reason why there is
a misunderstanding and why in a particular case a prosecution
does not take place and in another case it does?
Jean Taylor: I
strongly believe there is a lack of communication among the CPS,
police and the families. There is a huge gap and lack of information.
They should be working together more closely. I see families who
have carried the pain of no justice, and yet I say to myself,
"Insight? Foresight? Why wasn't it given?" It is always
in the public interest. We owe it to ourselves to help make society
a safer place, but this country must be seen as having a law that
is fair and also that we do not lose deterrence. I believe there
is lack of communication with the CPS, the police and victims'
families, but we must always say that, of course, it is in the
public interest. In Liverpool, the public are aware of the perpetrators
who did what they did to Andrew Jones that night, yet they are
allowed to walk free. Why? Because there is no law under which
they could have been sentenced. Did joint enterprise fit? Was
it good enough? Why wasn't it good enough? They were all there
and still they remained silent; they built up that wall of silence.
That wall of silence must not be allowed to continue.
Q50 Mr Llwyd:
First, perhaps I may say to both of you that we are in complete
sympathy with you. We understand the trauma that both families
have gone through, and we are trying to look at both sides of
the argument, so do not think that we are being in any way antipathetic
if I ask a question.
Jean Taylor: No,
not at all; I fully understand that. Thank you.
Q51 Mr Llwyd:
You will know, for example, that the Metropolitan Police have
publicly said that joint enterprise is a useful tool in dealing
with gang crime.
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q52 Mr Llwyd:
Therefore, you believe that it has a deterrent role in deterring
young people from gang culture. Do you believe that to be right?
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q53 Mr Llwyd:
Earlier you said that joint enterprise did not fit the bill in
terms of what happened to Mrs Jones's son. You will also appreciate
that there are many stages to look at the evidence in order to
found a proper prosecution for joint enterprise.
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q54 Mr Llwyd:
There must have been foreseeability. There must have been a real
issue as to an immediate degree of violence occurring which would
have been reasonably foreseeable, and so on. I do not know the
circumstances, but it is possible, is it not, that some of those
who were bystanders, as it were, were not in the know as to what
was going to happen that evening?
Jean Taylor: I
will not mention any particular case, but I know there are cases
where they could not foresee what was going to happen. You cannot
foresee something unless it has been arranged prior to it happening.
If it happens instantly, how could the rest of that group see
that, all of a sudden, there is this fight or attack? How could
they foresee that if it happened instantaneously? Again, if it
goes into the media as high profile, they will be charged.
I have many other cases; I am not just going to talk
about Andrew Jones. I have the Kevin Lavelle case. There are a
lot of other cases up and down this country. I know the Committee
can't get involved in any one particular case or do anything about
what happened. I am not asking for that. But, just to educate
you a little further on the Andrew Jones case, one of the group
stated that the perpetrator had tried to cause some trouble earlier
in the evening with some other innocent victim. Her words in that
statement were, "He was out for trouble. We could tell he
was out for trouble." By frogmarching Mr Jones backwards
down that side street, that was the foresight about what was going
to happen. With aggression, that is foresight, yet because the
Andrew Jones case was not high profile enough they were not charged
with joint enterprise. We cannot allow joint enterprise to be
charged at random just because it is thick in the media and to
say, "Right; we've got convictions." This is what's
happening. We have given these workshops, which are funded by
the Home Office, in areas of Liverpool where there is a growing
gang culture. I know that for gangs it is a deterrent, but we
are also talking about groups.
Q55 Chair: Following
on from Mr Llwyd's question, you work a lot with young people
who might be caught up in these situations?
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q56 Chair: Do
you think deterrence works in the sense that they are aware, "If
I get involved in that or if I am on the scene, they might get
me for joint enterprise"? I am perhaps a little sceptical
that young people think in those terms and are even aware of the
legal process to which they might be subject if they stay in the
crowd where this is happening. Do you think there is a deterrent
awareness where people say, "I must stay away from there
or I might be done for joint enterprise"?
Jean Taylor: To
be honest with you, Sir Alan, I think they need to be educated
further on joint enterprise. You would be extremely surprised
how many youngsters don't understand joint enterprise. That is
something I include in the workshops that I deliver in and around
Liverpool. I strongly believe there are no better people to do
that tour. It is no good a police officer getting up there, because
they don't like the police; they don't welcome the police. Families
go in and do these workshops. There needs to be far more education
on joint enterprise for those who are members of a gang.
Q57 Mr Llwyd:
Following on from that point and Sir Alan's question, is misunderstanding
of joint enterprise leading to witnesses not coming forward?
Jean Taylor: Yes,
I would say so. I know of a case—again, I won't disclose
names—where one member of the group went with one or both
parents to the police station and gave evidence of what he saw
when the gentleman was attacked. He later died. Yet he thought
that by doing so he was doing the right thing. Again, it was a
high-profile case, but that gentleman is now serving time in prison,
yet he helped the police; he gave a statement. Does that steer
them away? What message are we sending out? If they give statements,
will they still be charged with joint enterprise?
Q58 Mr Llwyd:
Some evidence we have had from the university of Oxford suggests
that only 21% of the public consider that murder convictions based
on the doctrine of joint enterprise are things they can support.
In other words, only 21% of the public support convictions for
murder based on joint enterprise. If you do not have a comment,
it does not matter.
Jean Taylor: I
don't know what to say really, to be honest. Do you have any comment
to make on that, Christine?
Christine Jones:
It is because a lot of them don't understand what it really means.
They are scared to give their comment and to support it because
they barely understand what it means.
Q59 Mr Llwyd:
I have a final question that I suspect should be to both of you.
How do you believe public confidence in joint enterprise can be
strengthened? You are doing workshops in Merseyside and so on.
How do you believe that things can be improved in terms of public
confidence?
Jean Taylor: I
am not sure of the figure. It may be that £18 million has
been pumped into deterring youths, gangs and guns. I think that
right across the board there needs to be education on the whole
thing by ordinary families, but, going back to joint enterprise,
it must be seen that it will not just be thrown around and used.
I know that there are young men who have been convicted of joint
enterprise, maybe rightly so, and are members of a gang, but I
also believe there are those inside prison who maybe should have
been charged only with aiding and abetting and not given the lengthy
sentence they were given. That is why we have to be careful. I
have read quite a lot about joint enterprise and, to be honest,
it is a very complicated common law.
Q60 Elizabeth Truss:
I want to ask about the specifics on legislation. It seems to
me that a lot of this issue is to do with the way it is being
interpreted by the police and the CPS. Is it the case that, rather
than necessarily needing new legislation, guidance could be offered
to those organisations on the way joint enterprise ought to be
applied? I just want to add to Mr Llwyd's point about the
Oxford study. Maybe more flexibility is required within joint
enterprise so that lesser charges, such as being an accessory,
can be included within it. Maybe the police can be given more
flexibility. I do not know your view on that. Is the mechanism
really a new law, because it seems that the law on joint enterprise
is being applied correctly in some cases? It is just a question
of the consistency of its application.
Jean Taylor: The
local police would know where the gangs are and who they are.
If that gang is in front of the courts then it can be joint enterprise,
but what if they are not part of a gang? If they are not part
of a gang, how can you throw joint enterprise at them? I think
a lot of faith has been lost.
Q61 Mr Buckland:
That is a very fair point, Mrs Taylor. If there is not evidence
of a pre-conceived purpose, as you would have with a gang, it
will depend on the facts of the case. If a group of people who
were not part of a gang all knew that the principal had a knife,
that would be foreseeability and a joint enterprise.
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q62 Mr Buckland:
It would then depend on the facts of the case, would it not?
Jean Taylor: Yes,
and then we could go back to the case of Andrew Jones. That involved
foresight, yet joint enterprise was not charged. I think it needs
to be used only in certain cases. If it is going to be used, maybe
it should apply to gang members, but not when it is proven they
are not part of the gang. If they were out causing a fracas on
the night, it should be aiding and abetting. We should not be
sending somebody to prison for 15 or 17 years because he stands
there and because it is high profile.
Q63 Jeremy Corbyn:
Thank you both very much for coming and giving evidence; it is
extremely helpful to our inquiry.
Jean Taylor: Thank
you.
Jeremy Corbyn: What response
would you give to criticisms that joint enterprise is sometimes
used as a dragnet leading to young people being wrongly described
as gang members and, therefore, convicted of involvement in an
offence? Since you have been involved in this for quite a while,
what suggestions would you make for any legal changes to deal
with this issue?
Jean Taylor: I
think that, if it was to be used in that way, where it was thought
they were part of it, they would need proof. The police officers
would know if they were part of a gang or not; they operate in
those areas. Last night in Liverpool alone, there was an incident
involving two young men. How old were they, Christine?
Christine Jones:
They were between 18 and 21.
Jean Taylor:
There was crossfire in the street; there were children there.
It was not only there but in the area where Rhys Jones was shot.
That was only last night in Liverpool.
Q64 Jeremy Corbyn:
But the point is that, if the joint enterprise law is used, anyone
who was present at that incident, or any other incident where
gangs were involved, can be accused of being part of a joint enterprise.
You and I know perfectly well that young people growing up in
difficult environments feel the need to be involved in a gang
for their own security. It does not make them criminals; it does
not make them bad, but it means they are in a society where they
are worried. They can then end up being prosecuted for something
about which they perhaps knew nothing but just happened to be
in the vicinity of the incident at the time. Do you think that
is a problem with the law?
Christine Jones:
Yes, it is a problem.
Jean Taylor: It
is a problem but I think they should be educated further. If you
are going to walk around with your hood up and a mask across your
face, you are part of a gang. That gang, I'm afraid, is out to
do some harm, whether it is the gang across the road or whatever.
They need to be educated about the seriousness of it and what
it could lead to.
Q65 Jeremy Corbyn:
Nobody is condoning gangs; certainly I do not, and I do not think
anybody round this table is. But the point I am making is that
the use of the joint enterprise law consolidates membership and
strengthens the cohesion of a gang rather than reducing it and
breaking it apart, because the evidence required to get prosecution
of joint enterprise is rather less than the forensic evidence
required for the primary prosecution.
Christine Jones:
Joint enterprise should be used for breaking down walls of silence.
There are people out there at the moment who know what has been
going on; they just keep it to themselves and do not come forward
and tell. You should be able to go into a police station, give
a statement and then come out. If you are willing to give a statement
of what you have seen and tried to stop you should not be put
away, but if you have kept quiet behind a wall of silence for
so many years why shouldn't you be put away? You are part of that
gang, and that is why you are keeping quiet.
Q66 Jeremy Corbyn:
That is really helpful. Do you feel that local, regional and national
media have a role to play in this and could do quite a lot to
change attitudes towards this, or not?
Jean Taylor: Yes.
Q67 Jeremy Corbyn:
In which case, what advice would you give them?
Christine Jones:
I would tell them that specific people are not more important
than others. They are highlighting some people and making them
high profile. There is pressure on the CPS, the police and everyone
to find somebody to convict. There is no pressure for a conviction
in those cases where there is no publicity. That is why some are
being prosecuted and some are not.
Jean Taylor: It
then becomes an unfair law.
Q68 Ben Gummer:
I want to take further the point about high-profile cases and
your contention that because they are high profile the CPS put
in the effort to try to prosecute. Does that mean that you think
their failure to do so elsewhere is because they cannot be bothered,
because it is too difficult or because the resources are not there?
In your minds, what is the reason for them not doing so when there
is no media interest?
Christine Jones:
In my mind, the CPS decide who to prosecute. Nobody has a say
in whether or not they are going to go to court; it is up to the
CPS to decide who goes to court. It should not be. As far as I
am concerned, everybody should go through the court. It is up
to the jury or judge to find them guilty or not guilty, not the
CPS. Why should they decide who goes through and who does not?
Q69 Ben Gummer:
Mrs Taylor, you also made a point about high-profile cases. Why
do you believe that in low-profile cases the CPS are not making
the effort? What is the reason they are not doing so in low-profile
cases?
Chair: If it is the case.
Ben Gummer: If it is the
case.
Jean Taylor: It
could be cost-effective as well. There is more pressure on them
when it is high profile. The public want answers. Christine has
reasons why she thinks that is so that she does not wish to disclose
here. They know they have a job to do, and when it is in the public
interest and it is out there in the media they have got to be
seen to do that job properly.
Q70 Chair: Although
the Director of Public Prosecutions has given his oral evidence
today, we will draw to his attention your belief that high-profile
cases are more likely to be the subject of joint enterprise than
other cases where it is appropriate. We will give him the opportunity
to respond to us on the point you have raised.
Jean Taylor: Thank
you very much.
Chair: We are very grateful
to you for the evidence you have given us and the thorough way
you have done it. We very much appreciate it.
| 
