Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the doctrine of joint enterprise has been too broadly interpreted for the past 30 years, where does that leave us? What might we expect of the many people in prison who have been found guilty and sentenced on the basis of the doctrine? What are we to expect of cases in the future when the doctrine will have to be interpreted differently? My understanding is that not only will a person have had to foresee the outcome of their actions, but they must also have intended that outcome.
CLT will have Jo Cecil from Garden Court Chambers, who was instructed by Just Kids Law and which intervened in the case R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen  UKSC 8, provide some explanation of and the implications of the Judgment.
Joint enterprise is one of those legal concepts that demonstrates the tangled relationship between common sense and the law. The common sense part is undeniable and very important: it is possible to have a culpable share in a crime that someone else actually performs. It hardly matters who actually killed Stephen Lawrence when all his killers were eager and ready to do so. Although only one of them struck the first fatal blow, they were all quite rightly found guilty of murder. This part of the law still stands after the UK’s supreme court decided that the doctrine has been too broadly interpreted for the past 30 years.