The People 'Interested In These Matters', Judge? Why Don't You Be More Explicit About Who They Are?

On 22 January 2022, 11 boys entered a CCTV blind spot at the intersection of two roads in Stretford, Manchester. Only 10 left alive. Sixteen-year-old Kennie Carter was stabbed, his last words heard by his older brother to whom he was on the phone at the time: “They’ve stabbed me in my heart, bro.”

What happened in that CCTV blind spot has been the focus of a six-week trial at Manchester crown court, at which 10 Black boys, ranging in age from 12 to 16 at the time of the killing, stood accused of murder. Described as “a jigsaw with pieces missing” and “a net that had been cast wide” by lawyers defending the boys, the trial was the latest of several high-profile joint enterprise prosecutions involving large groups of Black youths in Manchester.

These trials attracting the attention of the usual suspects, of course, the ones who think that it's somehow 'unfair' that those whose hands aren't the ones holding the knife should be punished. Especially if - as is usually the case - they are black.

The controversial legal doctrine allows prosecutors to charge multiple people with the same crime. It can be applied even if a defendant played no active role but is found to have encouraged or assisted the main perpetrator. What it means to assist or encourage can fall to the the jury to interpret.

And the jury, mercifully free of critical race theory, seems to often take the view that if you're involved to the point of being part of the gang, you're just as guilty, which upsets the progressives. 

The contention surrounding the legal doctrine was not lost on the judge. Before the jury was even sworn in, Judge Julian Goose was heard warning the lawyers present about the term. “I’m not a fan any more of the words ‘joint enterprise’; it raises concern amongst people interested in these matters,” he said.

A coy and judicial way of saying 'activists and race hustlers', m'lud? 

But while the phrase was avoided, the principle behind the doctrine was clear. Despite the lack of CCTV at the moment of the stabbing, there was no question over who had caused the death. Everyone involved in the trial, including the defendant himself, agreed that the fatal blow was struck by Boy A, then 14, who cannot be named for legal reasons. He argued he was acting in self-defence after Kennie produced a knife. The prosecution said the knife was his own.

And if that won't work win over the jury, how about a bit of 'they was good boys, they dindu nuffin'? 

There was no evidence that any of the other nine defendants ever had any weapons or played any active role in the killing. Three of the boys said they were around the corner on another street and so did not even witness the events. Two of the boys, one of whom was just 12 at the time, were described as having abnormally low IQs. Another, who was 13 at the time, was autistic and had ADHD. And yet, Boy A was found guilty of murder and another three convicted of manslaughter after the Crown Prosecution Service argued that, through their presence at the scene, they intentionally assisted or encouraged Boy A in his actions. All nine boys had denied that suggestion.

And the jury clearly said 'pull the other one!'... 

“It’s collective punishment,” said Gloria Morrison, the founder of the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association (JENGbA). “It messes with the whole idea of what young people, or anybody, thinks justice is. What benefits can there be of locking up a child who hasn’t actually done the crime?”

Pour encourager les autres, Gloria...