Joint Enterprise: The Law That Convicted Me As A Teenager

At 18, I was convicted under the law of joint enterprise. I have always maintained my innocence, but the law caught me anyway. I’m not here to relitigate the details of that case. What I want to talk about is the law itself and why so many people, myself included, believe it is deeply unfair.

Joint enterprise allows a group of people to be convicted for a crime committed by one person in the group, if they were present, associated with the plan or foresaw that a crime might happen.

In my case, in 1985, the older version of joint enterprise applied. It was broader, looser and easier to use than the version in place today: it required less proof of intention, caught people on the edge of a situation, and made it simpler to convict an entire group rather than identify who did what. Even though the law has since been tightened after criticism, the consequences for people like me remain.

In my case, the court accepted that I tried to intervene when I realised something was wrong, but the judge ruled that this was not enough to mitigate my responsibility. I was still convicted under joint enterprise because I was regarded as part of the group, despite bringing the ordeal to an end. As I recall it, the judge said I may not have been directly involved in what happened, but as one of the older boys in the group I had to take some responsibility — effectively for the actions of others. That approach isn’t unique to my case; it’s how joint enterprise has worked for thousands of people.

That’s the part I’ve never been able to reconcile. How can the law hold someone responsible based on what it assumes they knew or foresaw, rather than what they actually did?

 Old joint enterprise vs new joint enterprise

The version of joint enterprise used in the 1980s was criticised for being too wide. It could catch people who were on the edge of a situation, who didn’t strike a blow, who didn’t plan the crime, but who were seen as part of the “group”.

In recent years, the law has been reined in. Courts now require clearer evidence of intention and participation. Campaigners and justice organisations have pushed for further reform, arguing that joint enterprise still casts the net too wide, especially for young people and certain communities.

Even with these changes, thousands of people remain convicted under the older, broader rules. Their convictions stand. Their lives were shaped by a law that many now accept was unfair.

Why this matters beyond one case

This isn’t just about me. It’s about:

- Teenagers caught up in situations they don’t fully understand  

- Families who watch a relative’s life derailed by a group conviction  

- Communities where joint enterprise is used heavily, creating deep distrust in the justice system  

- The long‑term mental health impact of being told you’re guilty by association, then expected to “move on” as if nothing happened  

For many, the label “joint enterprise” becomes the first thing people see, long before they see the person.

If the law itself is acknowledged to have been too broad, then the people convicted under it deserve more than silence. They deserve recognition, support and, where possible, review.

Who this article is for

This piece is written with four groups in mind:

- Policy makers, MPs and justice reform organisations who are considering further reform of joint enterprise and its long‑term consequences.  

- Mental health and support services working with people affected by conviction, stigma and the stress of rebuilding.  

- People who have been through similar experiences, convicted under joint enterprise or similar laws, and now trying to rebuild without being defined by their worst day.  

- The general public, who may only know joint enterprise from headlines and want a clearer, human picture of how it works in real life.

Four points of action if this resonates with you

If joint enterprise, or laws like it, touch your life in some way, here are four things you can consider:

- Learn how the law actually works. 

  Look for plain‑English guides from reputable justice reform organisations. Understanding the difference between old and new joint enterprise helps you explain your own situation more clearly.

- Share your story carefully.

  As with any conviction, think about when, where and how you disclose. Focus on facts, what you learned, and what you’ve done since, rather than relitigating the case in detail.

- Connect with reform and support groups.

  There are organisations campaigning for further change to joint enterprise and supporting those affected. You don’t have to become an activist, but knowing they exist can reduce the sense of isolation.

- Protect your mental health while engaging with this topic. 

  Reading about joint enterprise, campaigning, or repeatedly explaining your past can be draining. Build in support: a trusted friend, a counsellor or a mental health charity that understands conviction and the justice system.