Accused of Murder on a Joint Enterprise Basis? What the Crown Must Prove When Presence at the Scene Is Not Participation

Eight defendants, one death, and a question the jury had to answer

The jury heard the Crown’s case about a gathering in a park. Eight young males, all under 18, had attended a party. The prosecution said that several of them carried knives and that they shared an intention to commit robberies at knifepoint. One person was stabbed and died. The Crown’s case was that each of the eight was jointly responsible.

Our client was 15.

If you are reading this because you or someone close to you has been arrested alongside others for a violent offence, two questions are probably running together. Can they convict me for something someone else did? And does being there make me guilty? This guide answers both. It uses our client’s case to explain what the Crown must prove in a joint enterprise murder trial and what to do now.

Stuart Miller Solicitors acts for people accused of serious violent offences, including multi-handed murder trials involving young defendants. Our client was acquitted of murder after a four-month trial, and this guide uses his case to explain the law and the process.

The Allegation

The Crown alleged that our client was guilty of murder on a joint enterprise basis. Its case was that a group of young males, including our client, travelled together to a park, that some members of the group were carrying knives and that there was a shared intention to commit knife-point robberies. The prosecution said the deceased was stabbed by at least one individual and that each defendant was jointly responsible for the death because they shared an intention to kill or cause really serious harm.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness evidence and CCTV footage. The group could be seen travelling together on public transport, and some members of the group appeared to be in possession of balaclavas.

The defence did not dispute that our client was there. He accepted identification and presence at the scene. What he denied was any knowledge of the attack, any awareness that anyone was carrying a weapon and any shared intention to kill or cause really serious harm.

The record does not say which defendant was alleged to have used the knife, what the eyewitnesses said about our client specifically or what the CCTV showed him doing at the moment of the stabbing. It does not say what account the other defendants gave or whether any of them sought to blame him. We have added none of it.

The dispute the record identifies is about knowledge and intention. Could the Crown prove that our client shared the plan the prosecution described, or was he simply present when events unfolded beyond his control?

Joint enterprise murder: the law in plain English

What the Crown must prove

Murder is a common law offence. There is no statutory definition. The Crown must prove that the defendant unlawfully killed another person and that, at the time, the defendant intended to kill or cause really serious harm. The sentence is mandatory life imprisonment.

In a joint enterprise case, the Crown does not have to prove that the defendant struck the fatal blow. It can argue that the defendant is guilty as a secondary party, someone who assisted or encouraged the principal offender and shared the relevant intention.

The law on joint enterprise was restated by the Supreme Court in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. The court corrected a long-standing error that had allowed juries to convict on the basis that a defendant merely foresaw what the principal might do. Foresight is evidence of intention, but it is not the same thing. After Jogee, the Crown must prove that the secondary party:

• intended to assist or encourage the principal offender’s acts; and
• intended that the principal would act with the mental element required for the offence, in a murder case, an intention to kill or cause really serious harm.

That is a higher threshold than the old law, and it is the threshold the Crown must meet in every joint enterprise murder trial.

Presence is not participation

Being at the scene of a crime is not, by itself, an offence. The Crown must prove that the defendant did something to assist or encourage the principal and that he did so with the required intention.

Presence can be evidence of participation. A jury may consider whether someone stayed when they could have left, whether they acted in concert with others or whether their presence was intended to lend support. But presence alone, without more, does not prove guilt.

The record says our client accepted that he was there. The defence case was that his presence did not amount to knowledge of weapons, awareness of an attack or a shared intention to cause harm.

What CCTV and eyewitness evidence can and cannot show

CCTV can show who was in an area, what they were carrying and how a group moved together. It cannot show what someone knew, what they intended or what agreements, if any, were made between members of a group.

Eyewitness evidence can fill gaps, but it carries well-known risks. Identification evidence is governed by the principles in R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224. A jury must consider the circumstances of the observation, distance, lighting, duration, whether the witness knew the defendant and whether there is supporting evidence. In a fast-moving incident involving a group of young people, some in balaclavas, those circumstances require careful scrutiny.

The record does not say what the CCTV showed our client doing at the critical moment or how the eyewitnesses identified him. We have not guessed.

Knowledge of weapons

In a joint enterprise case involving a knife, the Crown must prove that the defendant knew that a weapon was being carried or at least foresaw that someone in the group might use a weapon to cause really serious harm, and that he continued to participate with that knowledge.

If a defendant did not know that anyone had a knife and had no reason to expect one, the Crown’s case on shared intention is significantly weakened. The record says our client denied any awareness that anyone was in possession of a weapon.

Young defendants in multi-handed murder trials

Intermediaries and special measures

Our client was 15 at the time of the offence and had no previous convictions. Because of his age and his vulnerability in the trial process, the defence instructed an intermediary.

An intermediary is a communication specialist appointed under section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Their role is to assess a defendant’s communication needs and to help the court ensure that the defendant can understand the proceedings and participate effectively. In a lengthy and complex trial, an intermediary can be critical.

The intermediary assisted our client during important aspects of the trial. The record does not say precisely which stages or what recommendations were made. We have not added detail.

The decision to give evidence

In a trial with eight defendants, the question of whether to give evidence is one of the most difficult a defence team faces. The risk is what lawyers call a “cut-throat” trial, one in which co-defendants seek to shift blame onto each other. If our client gave evidence, he risked being drawn into disputes with the other defendants’ cases, potentially exposing himself to cross-examination on matters that had nothing to do with his own instructions.

The record describes the approach in these terms: in cases like this, it is more about staying quiet and knowing when to say anything and when to draw attention to yourself before the jury.

The record does not say whether our client ultimately gave evidence. We have not stated that he did or did not. The point is that the decision was taken deliberately, with full awareness of the risks on both sides.

No comment interviews and adverse inferences

Our client was interviewed at the police station on two occasions and gave no comment on both. Between those interviews, he was on bail for almost two years.

A defendant has the right to remain silent. However, under sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a court or jury may in some circumstances draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s failure to mention facts when questioned that he later relies on in his defence.

The record does not say whether the Crown invited the jury to draw adverse inferences from the no comment interviews or whether the judge directed the jury on the point. What the record does show is that no comment at the police station is not, by itself, evidence of guilt, and a jury must still be satisfied on the evidence as a whole.

What was at stake

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. There is no discretion. The judge must impose a life sentence and set a minimum term that the defendant must serve before being considered for parole.

For defendants under 18 at the time of the offence, the starting points for the minimum term are set out in Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020. They are significantly lower than for adults, reflecting the defendant’s age and maturity. The record does not say what starting point would have applied here because our client was acquitted, and we do not speculate about hypothetical sentences.

A murder conviction would also have meant the loss of our client’s good character. He had no antecedent history. A conviction at 15 or 16 for murder would have shaped the rest of his life, his education, his employment, his housing and his liberty for decades.

Other consequences of a conviction are possibilities, not facts about our client. They include the lifelong label of a murder conviction, the impact on family members and, for someone of any age but particularly a child, the psychological weight of an indeterminate sentence.

The wait, and what a four-month trial means for a young defendant

The record gives limited detail about the timeline, and we have not built one beyond what is stated.

What the record does say is that our client was on bail for almost two years between his first and second police station interviews, and that the trial itself lasted four months. Those are significant periods in the life of a teenager.

A four-month trial with eight defendants involves a vast amount of material: CCTV footage from multiple cameras and angles, TFL records, eyewitness statements, phone data, forensic evidence and the accounts of seven co-defendants. The defence has to review all of it, identify what is relevant to their client and test what the Crown relies on. That takes time, and the process cannot be rushed.

For a young defendant on bail, the wait means living under the weight of a murder charge while trying to continue with education, family life and the ordinary business of growing up. The record does not say how our client managed that period. We have not guessed.

How the defence was built

The record describes the defence in a few key points. We set out what it says and stop where it stops.

Accepting presence, denying everything else

• The problem: the Crown’s case placed our client at the scene alongside seven others, some of whom were alleged to have carried knives and to have shared a plan to commit violence.
• The legal point: presence at the scene is not participation in a joint enterprise. The Crown must prove shared intention, not proximity.
• The action: the defence accepted identification and presence. It denied knowledge of the attack, awareness of weapons and any shared intention to kill or cause really serious harm.
• Why it mattered: by accepting what the CCTV and eyewitnesses could plainly show, the defence avoided fighting a losing battle on identification and focused the jury’s attention on the real question, what our client knew and intended.

Instructing an intermediary

• The problem: our client was 15, with no experience of the criminal justice system, facing a four-month trial with seven co-defendants.
• The legal point: young defendants are entitled to adaptations that allow them to participate effectively in their trial (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.29; Criminal Procedure Rules, Part 18).
• The action: the defence instructed an intermediary who assessed our client’s communication needs and assisted him during key stages of the trial.
• Why it mattered: a defendant who cannot follow the evidence or communicate with his legal team cannot have a fair trial. The intermediary helped ensure that our client’s age did not become a disadvantage.

Navigating the cut-throat risk

• The problem: eight defendants, one death, and the likelihood that some co-defendants would seek to blame others.
• The legal point: in a multi-handed trial, every defendant’s evidence is potentially a weapon against every other defendant. The decision to give evidence must be taken with full awareness of the cross-examination risks.
• The action: the defence team gave careful consideration to whether our client should give evidence, weighing the benefit of putting his account before the jury against the risk of exposing him to hostile cross-examination from co-defendants’ counsel.
• Why it mattered: the record describes the approach as knowing when to stay quiet and when to speak. In a trial of this complexity, restraint can be as important as action.

Challenging the inference from no comment interviews

• The problem: two no comment interviews, separated by nearly two years of bail, gave the Crown an opportunity to argue that our client had no innocent explanation to offer.
• The legal point: silence at the police station is not evidence of guilt. Adverse inferences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are permissible only in limited circumstances and cannot by themselves prove the Crown’s case.
• The action: the defence ensured that the jury understood the limits of what could be drawn from the interviews.
• Why it mattered: the Crown’s case depended on proving shared intention. Silence does not prove intention.

A spokesman for Stuart Miller Solicitors said:

“Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not a crime. The Crown must prove that a defendant shared the intention to kill or cause really serious harm, and in this case, after four months of evidence, the jury was not satisfied that he did.”

We do not say any one step produced the verdict. A jury gives no reasons.

The verdict, and what it did and did not resolve

After a four-month trial, the jury acquitted our client of murder. He kept his good character.

Precisely:

• It was a verdict after a full trial. The Crown’s evidence was heard and tested over four months. It means the Crown did not prove its case so that the jury was sure.
• A jury gives no reasons. We cannot say whether the challenge to joint intention, the intermediary’s work, the decision about giving evidence or anything else mattered most.
• It is not a finding about who used the knife or about the guilt or innocence of the other defendants. The record says nothing about the outcomes for the co-accused.
• It does not mean our client was not there. He accepted his presence. The verdict is about what the Crown could prove about his knowledge and intention, not about his location.

Some things to consider after an acquittal:

• Ask your solicitor whether a defendant’s costs order is available if you funded your defence privately. Limits apply.
• Property and devices seized during the investigation should be returned. Ask your solicitor to confirm the process.
• Ask what data police retain from phones, CCTV and other sources, and for how long.
• If the acquittal followed a lengthy period on bail, ask your solicitor whether any bail conditions remain in force and need to be formally discharged.

Ask your solicitor to confirm in writing what was resolved and what, if anything, remains.

What to do now if you are accused of murder on a joint enterprise basis

What helps tonight depends on the stage you are at.

Ask for a solicitor before answering questions at the police station

Police station advice is free. You can ask for the duty solicitor or name a firm. A no comment interview is a legitimate choice, but it carries the risk of adverse inferences if you later rely on facts you could reasonably have mentioned at the time. Whether, when and how to give an account is a decision to take with a solicitor first, not in the interview room.

Do not assume that presence makes you guilty

The Crown must prove that you intended to assist or encourage the principal offender and that you shared the intention to kill or cause really serious harm. If you were at the scene but did not know about a weapon, did not agree to any plan and did not encourage the attack, the Crown’s case may be weaker than it appears. Tell your solicitor exactly what you knew, what you saw and what you did not know.

If you are young or vulnerable, ask about an intermediary

Defendants under 18, and those with communication difficulties, learning disabilities or mental health conditions, may be entitled to an intermediary. An intermediary can make the difference between a fair trial and one in which the defendant cannot follow the evidence or instruct their legal team. Ask your solicitor whether an assessment is appropriate.

Think carefully about giving evidence in a multi-handed trial

The decision to give evidence when co-defendants may blame you is one of the most consequential in any criminal trial. It should be taken with your legal team after full consideration of the risks. Do not feel pressured to give evidence because you think the jury expects it, and do not refuse to give evidence without understanding the consequences. Your solicitor and barrister will advise you based on the evidence and the dynamics of the trial.