JOINTENTERPRISE BILL (JEB)
JEB launch at the House of Commons
Charlotte May Henry is the driving force behind JEB
Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill
A BILL TO
To amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to allow, notwithstanding the date
of conviction, leave to appeal where the conviction was based upon an
interpretation of law now declared erroneous; and where the applicant is
said to be suffering the ill effects of the law.
Insert, following Section 1(2)(c): where the Court of Appeal determines
the following two conditions are met -
(i) the conviction was based upon an interpretation of law now declared
(ii) the applicant is said to be suffering the ill effects of the law.
Overview of the Bill
Currently, to apply for permission to appeal against a criminal
conviction, the applicant must serve their application within 28 days
following the date of conviction. All other applications are out of
time and at the discretion of the judiciary.
The impact of this is greatest felt where someone seeks to appeal
against conviction following legal reform as these cases are more
likely to be out of time.
Those who appeal within time will have their appeal upheld where the
conviction is . Comparatively those appealing out of time and on the
basis that there has been legal reform, must pass an additional appeal
hurdle known as the test.
The substantial injustice test is far more onerous than the safety
test and it arguably s right to a fair trial. The aim of this proposed
amendment is to remove the 28-day time limit and abolish the
substantial injustice test for appeals which follow an erroneous
interpretation of law and where the applicant is still said to be
suffering the ill effects of the law.
This proposed amendment does not afford an appeal where the law was
not applied erroneously and where the applicant cannot be said to be
suffering the ill effects of the law. These caveats recognise that law
must be allowed to alter with the changing needs of society and
appeals based on all judicial reform would not only be burdensome on
the Court of Appeal, but would also erode the principle of finality.
Specifically, we would amend s.1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to
include a third avenue of appeal - s. 1(2)(c) underlined below; s.
1(1) A person convicted of an offence on indictment may appeal to the
Court of Appeal against his conviction. s .1(2) An appeal under this
section lies only (a) with the leave of the Court of Appeal; (b) if,
within 28 days from the date of the conviction, the judge of the court
of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal; or (c)
where the Court of Appeal determines the following two conditions are
met - (i) the conviction was based upon an interpretation of law now
declared erroneous; and (ii) the applicant is said to be suffering the
ill effects of the law.
The addition of s. 1(2)(c) brings the test for out of time applicants,
who appeal based on an interpretation of law now declared erroneous,
in line with those who appeal within 28 days. Furthermore, the
addition of s. 1(2)(c)(ii) allows the Court to reject those cases
where the applicant cannot be said to be suffering the ill effects of
the law, thus allowing law to alter with the changing needs of society
and uphold the principle of finality, without the detriment to
WHO WE ARE
Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA) is a grass roots
campaign, founded in 2010 by Janet Cunliffe and Gloria Morrison to
combat the widely condemned doctrine of Joint Enterprise and
particularly, Parasitic Accessorial Liability (PAL). JENGbA is
coordinated and run by family members of those convicted under the
doctrine. Joint Enterprise is an everyday phrase to describe the
situation where two or more people are convicted for participating in
the same crime. One type of Joint Enterprise is PAL which is where two
or more people commit a criminal offence (crime A) and during the course
of this crime, one of the group goes on to commit a further crime (crime
B). All those that participated in crime A will also be liable for crime
B if they foresaw the possibility that crime B might occur. The
application of PAL was criticised at the highest level of the legal
establishment as it allowed for the accessory to be convicted of very
serious crimes on the basis of what they foresaw and not what they
intended and the anomaly that it was therefore easier to convict the
accessory compared with the principal. On 18th February 2016 and
following years of tireless campaigning by JENGbA, we were ultimately
successful in R v Jogee  UKSC 8, when the Supreme Court abolished
PAL and reinstated principles of traditional accessorial liability.
However that victory was bittersweet as the decision in Jogee is not
automatically retrospective and instead, to obtain an appeal, all those
convicted under PAL must prove a substantial injustice would otherwise
The substantial injustice test was later interpreted in R v Johnson
 EWCA Crim 1613 into an incredibly onerous legal burden. In
particular, that permission to appeal will only be granted to those who
can prove that they would not have been convicted if the law had been
properly applied. JENGbA currently supports over 1000 men, women and
children convicted under Joint Enterprise and only one has successfully
appealed following Jogee.