10 teenagers found guilty of murder in Houghton case

I don’t get her angle.

The law is clear in that if you are a secondary party that encourages or assists the principal offender then you are guilty of the principal offence. How is that unfair?

Asking the police officer if he knows what joint enterprise is, is like asking a bus driver to explain the intricate workings of the internal combustion engine.
She doesn't like the (secondary liability)law and also thinks that the police should be law experts when that isn't really their job.
 


I don’t get her angle.

The law is clear in that if you are a secondary party that encourages or assists the principal offender then you are guilty of the principal offence. How is that unfair?

Asking the police officer if he knows what joint enterprise is, is like asking a bus driver to explain the intricate workings of the internal combustion engine.
I’d be very surprised if they didn’t know what joint enterprise was. With people like that it’s easier to just say “I don’t know” as having a basic understanding of it is totally different to know the full legislation. The person behind the camera will be able to quote stuff verbatim and then claim you know fuck all if you slightly mis word the definition. Also opens you up to being asked how/why you think it should apply in this case.

So in short, it saves a lot of fuck on just saying “I don’t know”.
 
I don’t get her angle.

The law is clear in that if you are a secondary party that encourages or assists the principal offender then you are guilty of the principal offence. How is that unfair?

Asking the police officer if he knows what joint enterprise is, is like asking a bus driver to explain the intricate workings of the internal combustion engine.
A lot of her tweets are ridiculous. She goes on about how the judge is dishing out “life sentences” and then goes on to say that all of them being done for murder is making a mockery of the justice system.

But we can clearly see that the “life sentences” in this instance are minimums of 8-17 years in reality. To me, that’s what makes a mockery of the justice system.
 
  • A 16-year-old who was 15 at the time to serve at least 11 years after the judge said he was seen for a couple of seconds on mobile phone footage moving towards the brawl with his head concealed by a hood or balaclava, although the youth was not named by any witnesses and did not give any account to police or the court
This statement stood out for me reading the news article with regards to the joint enterprise law
That can’t be true surely, there must be more evidence against him than that.
 
  • A 16-year-old who was 15 at the time to serve at least 11 years after the judge said he was seen for a couple of seconds on mobile phone footage moving towards the brawl with his head concealed by a hood or balaclava, although the youth was not named by any witnesses and did not give any account to police or the court
This statement stood out for me reading the news article with regards to the joint enterprise law

To be guilty there must be proof that:

the defendant assisted the principal, by their own conduct and with intent, to commit the offence

The defendant encouraged the principal, by their own conduct and with intent, to commit the offence

the defendant procured (eg ordered/suggested/commissioned) the offence committed by the principal and the principal committed the offence with the necessary intent.

I'm guessing there must be some evidence or there weren't be a conviction.
 
Yes he didn’t die from the knife wound apparently it was the severity of the beating. If that’s the case anyone who struck him is as guilty as the next as it would be impossible to tell which was the blow that done the damage
They could be equally guilty regardless via secondary liability, for encouraging with intent etc etc.
 

Back
Top