good drama, however some parts just didn't make sense, like how the young lad who voluntarily gave his statement (and named the killer) was held in custody and on remand (fair enough) but the other lad wasn't arrested for days?.
Plus how did the older brother get let out by the police without them rushing round to nick his younger brother, surely they didn't just let him go after he said 'I wasn't driving my car that night' etc...he must've had to say who was.
But all in all, very interesting - especially around the joint enterprise law, which is madness
It was an interesting and well-acted drama. But I was slightly disappointed that, it was partially ruined by McGovern's usual political agenda. He'd obviously researched his topic well. Well enough to cleverly make the age of the main subject 17 - just over the age when he would have had to have had a "appropriate adult or lawyer present during questioning and also - just - old enough to drive but young enough to be gullible and easily influenced by the actual perpetrators. He also took away the near certainty that the driver would have been found not guilty of joint enterprise murder by getting him to plead to a separate offence of GBH. Joint Enterprise seems to have been used quite a bit. Here's an extract of a report: "It allows prosecutors to pursue a conviction for those who are genuinely culpable for their part in a crime, even if they did not strike a fatal blow. Joint enterprise was eventually used to convict Stephen Lawrence's killers, even though it was impossible to say who of those present had inflicted the fatal wound that killed the teenager in 1993." It seems to be a particularly useful tool in gang-related crimes. So, does anyone here think that joint enterprise is very silly indeed when taken in the context of the eventual Lawrence convictions? I have emphasised the "genuinely culpable" bit. Of course, in the story put out in this drama, it seems that with no evidence to the contrary, the CPS tests of public interest and evidential sufficiency would have made it highly unlikely that the case against the driver would have got to court. If it had, the chances are the Judge would have thrown it out on submissions from any half decent barrister. (But that would have ruined the writer's story of course.) That aside, quite why we have the fine distinction between "joint enterprise" and "conspiracy" offences seems odd and I think the old common law bit needs to be blended with the Criminal Law Act into new legislation combining the best bits of both. Meanwhile please don't start thinking that a McGovern drama bears any resemblance to actuality.
I haven't watched the show, but I've seen a few articles and how people are interpreting it.
Joint Enterprise could be used properly and really work, as intended, to prevent group mentality and ensure people don't behave like pack animals... Unfortunately, its not that simple and a lot of people can get caught up in it with regards to easy prosecutions.
Conspiracy is another interesting one. There was a few bits in the paper recently about a group of photographers who were being done for attempting to gain access to a certain location, no damage and no thieving - just getting in and taking photos from a rooftop.
One of the photographers in question was involved as a conspirator for text messages saying the others could borrow some of his photographic and climbing equipment..
I always defend the police, perhaps not the CPS, but it's about time these things were used properly. They could be used as an incredibly powerful tool with regards to organised crime and gang crime etc; not as a generic fallback or catch-all, or to quote a solicitor who is often in the office, 'to break a butterfly on a wheel'.
Excellent McGovern piece. As a father of 3 grown lads its a bloody worry that they could get life just for basically 'association'.
As I tried to explain above, do not let a good but biased McGovern drama and the peculiar stance the BBC is taking in commissioning such one-sided productions worry you about such matters.
A CPS spokesperson explains: "... our guidance makes clear that prosecutors should give careful consideration to which charges are appropriate and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The suspect's age and their level of culpability are important factors in these decisions. We never (my emphasis) prosecute a person just for being present at the scene of a crime. Prosecutors look for evidence that a person could have foreseen what might happen – such as knowledge that a member of their party was armed, for example - and that they took an active role in the offence, either directly or by assisting or encouraging it."
Just knowing or associating with someone who is a bit dodgy is not an offence. As is often the case, mothers, in particular, are just deluding themselves if they think that "my little Johnny" is innocent and could never be involved in such things.
McGovern knew he could never get away with having his "victim" banged up for murder which is why he copped out and ended up with the silly pleading guilty to GBH ending.
Hmmm fair shout CAFCFan, good post, however there was a piece on last night which focused on real life cases of kids in gangs who remain schtum, and they were getting GBH time just for being there, admittedly we only got the mums story so as you alluded to, maybe their little 'do no wrongs' did more than mum wanted to know.
Very good drama which presents quite a worrying picture. I taped the follow up documentary about the real-life cases last night so am looking forward to hearing more information on this worrying piece of new legislation.
The Street was the business, but like CE said, all McGovern's work are worth watching, although I sympathise with what CAFC fan says above.
I agree, he is a damn good writer but never even pretends to impartiality - if he's got an agenda (which is most of the time) he will push it at the expense of facts, or even plausibility if he really heats up. I admire the passion, it probably is a big part of what makes him so good, but if you disagree with his views I could see it grating.
The documentary that followed it last night was well worth a watch, about 3 families who have been affected by the 'association' law. Show's the good side and bad side to the law, gets you really thinking. Well worth a watch.
Very good drama which presents quite a worrying picture. I taped the follow up documentary about the real-life cases last night so am looking forward to hearing more information on this worrying piece of new legislation.
Hardly new - the law derives from a case in 1846! R v John Swindall and James Osborne It concerned cart racing - yes that's right as in horse and cart. (No speed cameras in those days!) An individual was run over and killed but it could not be ascertained which cart driver ran over the victim. The judge concluded that they were inciting each other to race and, as such, were both guilty of manslaughter. You can read more here if you so wish. scribd.com/doc/163698387/R-v-Swindall-and-Osborne-1846-2-C-and-K-230
Very good drama which presents quite a worrying picture. I taped the follow up documentary about the real-life cases last night so am looking forward to hearing more information on this worrying piece of new legislation.
Hardly new - the law derives from a case in 1846! R v John Swindall and James Osborne It concerned cart racing - yes that's right as in horse and cart. (No speed cameras in those days!) An individual was run over and killed but it could not be ascertained which cart driver ran over the victim. The judge concluded that they were inciting each other to race and, as such, were both guilty of manslaughter. You can read more here if you so wish. scribd.com/doc/163698387/R-v-Swindall-and-Osborne-1846-2-C-and-K-230
Interesting link, then I guess that it could be applied to two boy racers belting along and one hits a third party vehicle injuring/killing the driver, so both would be culpable.
Personally I think the joint enterprise law is both needed and badly constructed, giving rise to opportunistic applications. To me it relies on a lot of circumstantial evidence and assumption presumed to be reasonable; I doubt anyone could claim they could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a driver claiming to have been only asked to drive them to a pizza hut was actually doing so as part of a conspiracy to cause someone harm.
That said, this was the weakness in the drama for me. It didn't really address joint enterprise, because it relied on the threat of the others to provide misleading anecdotal evidence to the court and - fatally - the acceptance of the innocent of a lesser change rather than to test his case before 12 men good and true.
Personally I doubt that I'd convict the lad in the drama if I was on his jury. To me there's a world of difference between providing the transport for someone to commit a crime and actually being part of the conspiracy. Getting there wasn't in any way - in my view - the key element to the crime committed. And as any conspiracy involved confronting someone else entirely to the guy killed, I can't see how the driver could in any way be associated with the crime that was actually committed in the drama. I'm no legal expert, so I might be directed differently in reality.
All that said, the list of apparent innocents at the end didn't move me at all. I'm quite sure mummy doesn't believe her little darling did anything wrong, but I'm not sure how the BBC could present those as genuine 'rough justice' cases at all.
Very good drama which presents quite a worrying picture. I taped the follow up documentary about the real-life cases last night so am looking forward to hearing more information on this worrying piece of new legislation.
Hardly new - the law derives from a case in 1846! R v John Swindall and James Osborne It concerned cart racing - yes that's right as in horse and cart. (No speed cameras in those days!) An individual was run over and killed but it could not be ascertained which cart driver ran over the victim. The judge concluded that they were inciting each other to race and, as such, were both guilty of manslaughter. You can read more here if you so wish. scribd.com/doc/163698387/R-v-Swindall-and-Osborne-1846-2-C-and-K-230
Interesting link, then I guess that it could be applied to two boy racers belting along and one hits a third party vehicle injuring/killing the driver, so both would be culpable.
An interesting concept. My guess would be that the forensic examination of the vehicles would determine which vehicle had hit the victim and a charge of causing death by dangerous driving would follow for the driver of that car. (Which, I suppose, in the associated civil matter, would make the insurance claim, etc much more straightforward for the victim's family?) And the other driver would merely "get off" with a dangerous driving charge. However, I wonder what would happen if there were, say, 2 lads in the car, both had their fingerprints on the steering wheel and neither of them would admit to driving the vehicle at the time? Would/could joint enterprise be used then?
Watched the follow up documentary tonight. I can't see how anyone could dispute the ridiculousness and unfairness of the convictions and sentances in some (not all) of them cases.
Comments
Didn't realise it was on tonight I meant to watch it.
Dammit.
Plus how did the older brother get let out by the police without them rushing round to nick his younger brother, surely they didn't just let him go after he said 'I wasn't driving my car that night' etc...he must've had to say who was.
But all in all, very interesting - especially around the joint enterprise law, which is madness
He also took away the near certainty that the driver would have been found not guilty of joint enterprise murder by getting him to plead to a separate offence of GBH.
Joint Enterprise seems to have been used quite a bit. Here's an extract of a report: "It allows prosecutors to pursue a conviction for those who are genuinely culpable for their part in a crime, even if they did not strike a fatal blow. Joint enterprise was eventually used to convict Stephen Lawrence's killers, even though it was impossible to say who of those present had inflicted the fatal wound that killed the teenager in 1993."
It seems to be a particularly useful tool in gang-related crimes. So, does anyone here think that joint enterprise is very silly indeed when taken in the context of the eventual Lawrence convictions?
I have emphasised the "genuinely culpable" bit. Of course, in the story put out in this drama, it seems that with no evidence to the contrary, the CPS tests of public interest and evidential sufficiency would have made it highly unlikely that the case against the driver would have got to court. If it had, the chances are the Judge would have thrown it out on submissions from any half decent barrister. (But that would have ruined the writer's story of course.)
That aside, quite why we have the fine distinction between "joint enterprise" and "conspiracy" offences seems odd and I think the old common law bit needs to be blended with the Criminal Law Act into new legislation combining the best bits of both.
Meanwhile please don't start thinking that a McGovern drama bears any resemblance to actuality.
Joint Enterprise could be used properly and really work, as intended, to prevent group mentality and ensure people don't behave like pack animals... Unfortunately, its not that simple and a lot of people can get caught up in it with regards to easy prosecutions.
Conspiracy is another interesting one. There was a few bits in the paper recently about a group of photographers who were being done for attempting to gain access to a certain location, no damage and no thieving - just getting in and taking photos from a rooftop.
One of the photographers in question was involved as a conspirator for text messages saying the others could borrow some of his photographic and climbing equipment..
I always defend the police, perhaps not the CPS, but it's about time these things were used properly. They could be used as an incredibly powerful tool with regards to organised crime and gang crime etc; not as a generic fallback or catch-all, or to quote a solicitor who is often in the office, 'to break a butterfly on a wheel'.
A CPS spokesperson explains: "... our guidance makes clear that prosecutors should give careful consideration to which charges are appropriate and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The suspect's age and their level of culpability are important factors in these decisions. We never (my emphasis) prosecute a person just for being present at the scene of a crime. Prosecutors look for evidence that a person could have foreseen what might happen – such as knowledge that a member of their party was armed, for example - and that they took an active role in the offence, either directly or by assisting or encouraging it."
Just knowing or associating with someone who is a bit dodgy is not an offence. As is often the case, mothers, in particular, are just deluding themselves if they think that "my little Johnny" is innocent and could never be involved in such things.
McGovern knew he could never get away with having his "victim" banged up for murder which is why he copped out and ended up with the silly pleading guilty to GBH ending.
I taped the follow up documentary about the real-life cases last night so am looking forward to hearing more information on this worrying piece of new legislation.
It concerned cart racing - yes that's right as in horse and cart. (No speed cameras in those days!) An individual was run over and killed but it could not be ascertained which cart driver ran over the victim. The judge concluded that they were inciting each other to race and, as such, were both guilty of manslaughter. You can read more here if you so wish. scribd.com/doc/163698387/R-v-Swindall-and-Osborne-1846-2-C-and-K-230
That said, this was the weakness in the drama for me. It didn't really address joint enterprise, because it relied on the threat of the others to provide misleading anecdotal evidence to the court and - fatally - the acceptance of the innocent of a lesser change rather than to test his case before 12 men good and true.
Personally I doubt that I'd convict the lad in the drama if I was on his jury. To me there's a world of difference between providing the transport for someone to commit a crime and actually being part of the conspiracy. Getting there wasn't in any way - in my view - the key element to the crime committed. And as any conspiracy involved confronting someone else entirely to the guy killed, I can't see how the driver could in any way be associated with the crime that was actually committed in the drama. I'm no legal expert, so I might be directed differently in reality.
All that said, the list of apparent innocents at the end didn't move me at all. I'm quite sure mummy doesn't believe her little darling did anything wrong, but I'm not sure how the BBC could present those as genuine 'rough justice' cases at all.
However, I wonder what would happen if there were, say, 2 lads in the car, both had their fingerprints on the steering wheel and neither of them would admit to driving the vehicle at the time? Would/could joint enterprise be used then?
i listen to this song nearly every morning
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT COMMON THE RAPPER
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896