Profile image
By This Can't Be Happening
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Britain's Supreme Court Reverses Legal Practice Notorious For Prejudicial Enforcment

Thursday, February 18, 2016 9:45
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Wrongs Righted


Linn Washington Jr.

London, UK – Often lost in the damning evidence of injustice in the enforcement of Britain’s notorious legal doctrine of joint enterprise are real people like Susan Williams – persons whose lives have been shredded by the JE doctrine that Britain’s Supreme Court just gutted.

A grandson of Williams is serving a life sentence under joint enterprise where convictions carrying long sentences were possible even for persons who did not commit a crime or even know a crime would occur. Williams said her grandson was trying to break up a fight in 2010 that ended in a fatal shooting.

The nightmare for Williams from the joint enterprise arrest and conviction of her grandson, Trevelle Williams, got much darker last November when her youngest daughter, the mother of Trevelle, committed suicide.

Williams’ daughter, Tara Le, was distraught over her inability to free her son Trevelle, nicknamed Bluey, from what the Williams family and others saw as a wrongful conviction.

“The last thing she said to me was “Mom, no one is listening.” Tara said lawyers, the courts and human rights people would not respond to her or the evidence she had uncovered,” Williams said during an interview the day before Britain’s Supreme Court announced its historic ruling on JE.

That unanimous decision by Britain's highest court, rendered on February 18, 2016, stated legal standards for joint enterprise had been applied too loosely by police, prosecutors and courts or over 30-years.

The President of Britain’s Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, stated, “We consider that the proper course for this court is to re-state as nearly and clearly as we may, the principles which had been established over many years before the law took a wrong turn” when he read the decision before a courtroom packed with persons, most opposed to JE.

The Court’s unanimous ruling stated an error was made in the mid-1980s when law enforcers [from police through judges and legislators] began equating intent to commit a crime and/or intent to participate in a crime with the contention advanced by enforcers that persons arrested for a crime should have exercised “foresight” in knowing a crime could occur.

read more

A news collective, founded as a blog in 2004, covering war, politics, environment, economy, culture and all the madness


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.