‘Guilt By Association’ – Joint Enterprise & The Need For Reform

What is ‘Joint Enterprise’

Joint Enterprise is a concept in criminal law that allows for two or more people to be prosecuted for the same crime, where there has been a shared common purpose or intention. This means that even if two or more people didn’t have the same role in committing an offence, they can still be prosecuted together.

Depending on someone’s role they can be referred to as the ‘principal’ or the ‘secondary’ party, which is more widely known as being an ‘accessory’ and engages a legal doctrine called secondary liability. The principal is typically the person who carries out the substantive offence whereas the accessory is typically someone who has participated in some role.

This means that if someone intentionally assisted, encouraged or supported another to commit an offence they can also be held criminally liable for the same offence. It also means that two or more people can be convicted of the offence, even if it is not clear who actually committed the act and who was the ‘accessory’.

We regularly see joint enterprise raised in cases; most usually in allegation of serious violence or organised offending. One of the main concerns is the risk of “guilt by association” as individuals may find themselves prosecuted because of who they were with, rather than what they personally did. In large group incidents, particularly involving young people, the line between presence and participation can become blurred.

The use of Joint Enterprise has long raised concerns about fairness and racial disproportionality, in particular the use of gang allegations, social media activity and drill music as evidence of involvement in joint enterprise cases. Recent research shows that the use of Joint Enterprise prosecutions have increased and disproportionately affect young black men.

These cases are often highly complex as the prosecution may rely heavily on inference, association and communications evidence, rather than direct proof that a defendant intended for the offence to occur, therefore early legal intervention is crucial in challenging these cases.

R v Jogee

In 2016, the Supreme Court found in the case of R v Jogee (R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen (Jamaica) [2016] UKSC 8) that the law on Joint Enterprise and Secondary Liability had been wrongly applied for more than 30 years.

In the case of R v Jogee an individual had been convicted for murder, on the basis of joint enterprise, where their co-defendant at the time had physically killed the victim.

Before this case, a second person could be held responsible for a crime committed by another if they merely foresaw the possibility of that person committing the crime. This was known as parasitic accessory liability (PAL). In R v Jogee, the Supreme Court ruled that while foresight can be evidence of intent to assist, it is not conclusive of the second person’s guilt. Following R v Jogee, a secondary party must now have actually assisted or encouraged another in order to be held liable for the crime and they must have actually intended to assist or encourage them.

The result of R v Jogee was seen as a welcome and long over-due change to a law where the bar had been set too low for many years.

CCJS report

It was thought that Joint Enterprise prosecutions would have been curtailed following R v Jogee, however, a recent report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in April 2026 has found that Joint Enterprise cases have only increased in the last four decades.

The key findings of the report were:

• Three times the number of multi-suspect homicide cases were recorded in 2024 compared to 1984 and now account for nearly 10% of all homicide prosecutions.
• 40% of those convicted of homicide in cases involving four or more people are aged 18-24
• Over half of children under 16 convicted of murder between 2010 and 2024 were recorded as secondary suspects (the highest proportion of any age group).
• Black people convicted of homicide are 3 times more likely than white people to be convicted in a group case of four or more defendants
• 42% of secondary suspects convicted of manslaughter received a prison sentence of over ten years in 2022 (which was up from 7% in 2012).

The report found that there was no sustained reduction in these cases following the R v Jogee case. They further found that since 2016, secondary suspects prosecuted for murder appear more likely to be convicted of homicide rather than lesser offences.

It is evident that despite R v Jogee raising the legal threshold for conviction, concerns still remain about how joint enterprise is applied in practice, particularly the disproportionate prosecutions of young black men.

The report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies have called for reform in the following areas:

1. to narrow the scope of the law so that only a material contribution to an offence can establish liability (not mere presence or association);
2. to create a separate sentencing framework for secondary parties that recognises secondary status as a formal mitigating factor; and
3. to introduce mandatory pre-charge reviews requiring prosecutors to articulate each defendant’s individual conduct, role, and intent before proceeding with multi-defendant homicide cases.

Need for early legal intervention

Joint Enterprise remains to raise significant concerns about fairness, proportionality and wrongful conviction. For defence lawyers, it is essential to ensure that individuals are judged on their own actions and intentions – not simply on the actions of those around them.

Joint enterprise allegations can arise very quickly, particularly during police investigations. Anyone arrested or charged in connection with a Joint Enterprise allegation should seek legal advice immediately. Early representation can be critical in challenging assumptions and ensuring a person’s level of involvement is properly examined.

Our criminal defence team advises on a range of offences and if your matter ends up in the police station or court, we’ll guide and represent you through the entire process. We encourage anyone seeking legal advice in this area to contact our team on 0330 822 3451 or request a callback.