Peter Dowd
MP for Bootle · Labour · United Kingdom
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce urgent reforms, known as “Tim’s Law”, to strengthen the response to drink, drug and dangerous driving, including the immediate suspension of driving licences for those suspected of serious driving offences, the introduction of rapid evidential roa…”
“The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that current laws and procedures relating to drink driving, drug driving, and dangerous driving are failing to protect the public, as delays between arrest and prosecution allow suspected high-risk drivers, including repeat offenders, to remain on the roads, co…”
“The NHS will carry out screening and evaluation of newborn babies for spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which causes spinal cord deterioration. It is a devastating genetic condition. The evaluation will start in October in England, but not in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. Does my hon.”
“Improving its rail links and connectivity is important, and it has an impact on regional growth. Grid capacity and decarbonisation have to be developed in the context of an appropriate planning framework. Liverpool port deals with bulk timber, bulk liquids, bulk cargo and general cargo and with 720,000 passengers a year.”
“It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on bringing this debate to this Chamber. I will talk about the port of Liverpool, which is actually mostly in my constituency of Bootle, and set out its importance.”
“I am really pleased that the Railways Bill has a target of 75% rail freight growth by 2050. That will enable us to unlock other markets, and of course it will provide public and private investment in connectivity; it is important that the two work closely together. Local communities have to be part of the development of the programme.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Peter Dowd, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“Now is the time for us to act to ensure that people living with kidney disease get the help they need.” Kidney Research UK states: “Having a long-term condition dramatically increases a person’s risk of mental ill health…Having poor mental health as well as a long-term condition leads to worse outcomes for a person’s physical health.” A thread runs through every single one of these narratives. According to Dementia UK: “70,800 people in the UK are estimated to have young onset dementia, when symptoms develop before the age of 65. Yet people affected by young onset dementia remain a hidden population with unmet health care needs.” It recommends: “The Government must mandate every” integrated care system “to develop a young onset dementia pathway—putting those of working age with dementia at its heart.”
“Implementing our recommended strategies will lead to improvements in the overall wellbeing and quality of life for people living with kidney disease while reducing the burden on the NHS.” I have often heard the word “burden”, but I do not think it is a question of being a burden; it is a question of people’s right to have care, as and when they need it—I never see that as a burden. Kidney Care went on: “We cannot let the repeated absence of appropriate mental health and social support continue.”
“Due to their rarity, services are significantly underdeveloped to support people affected by them.” It also says: “Almost half of people living with rare conditions and their carers have never been asked about their mental health…and families report being denied access to mental health services due to the complexity of their needs associated with having a rare genetic condition.” Its solution is: “It is necessary to urgently improve awareness of rare conditions among healthcare professionals and social care services.” The diabetes charity Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation talks about coping strategies: “Seeking support from healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, diabetes educators, psychologists, and social workers, is crucial in developing effective coping mechanisms tailored to individual needs.” Kidney Care states: “Addressing the mental health and social needs of kidney patients requires a multi-layered approach combining clinical, community, and policy initiatives.”
“Living in constant pain is incredibly draining because it’s always there, which makes it difficult to enjoy everyday moments.” Genetic Alliance UK, which colleagues have an interest in, talks about rare conditions that are “individually rare but collectively common”, with more than 3.5 million people in the UK living with a rare condition. It says: “Rare conditions can be life-limiting and life-threatening.”
“The Government must centre integrated mental and physical health care within their plans for improving health care.” The Versus Arthritis organisation says that depression is four times more common among those with chronic pain than those without pain—I do not think that is surprising—20% of people living with osteoarthritis experience symptoms of depression and anxiety, and 33% of people living with rheumatoid arthritis have mental health problems such as depression or anxiety. It says: “Stress is also a significant factor for people living with arthritis.” One of its service users, Richard, said: “I didn’t appreciate just how big an impact my arthritis had on my mental health until I became pain-free. The pain took up so much of my headspace without me realising it.”
“The Royal College of Psychiatrists talks about how having a physical illness can also have a negative effect on how someone thinks and feels. There are impacts in relation to stress, the sense of self, relationships, and understanding of the world. It says: “Research has shown a link between mental illnesses and certain physical illnesses” such as cancer, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure and epilepsy. Marie Curie says: “While parity of esteem between mental and physical health is enshrined in law it is not yet being realised. There is limited access to mental health support, insufficient training for health and social care professionals and poor integration of palliative care and mental health care.”
“Impact on Urban Health talks about 15 million people in the UK having one long-term condition and about 3 million living with three or more. It says: “Poor physical health is inextricably linked with poor mental health, and both can be exacerbated by social context, or in other words where and how we live.” The British Psychological Society says: “There is a growing evidence base demonstrating the benefits of developing the psychological workforce within physical health care service provision to support earlier intervention, interdisciplinary programmes of care, and a focus on health distress and psychological adjustment as part of rehabilitation and recovery.” The Cystic Fibrosis Trust says that, in regard to out- patient care, “the paediatric CF service specifications say ‘there should be access to psycho-social support’ and the adult CF service specifications say ‘there will be access to psycho-social support.’” Its ask is this: “Everyone with CF must have access to a CF social worker and clinical psychologist, as and when needed, and not just at their annual review, as NHS service specifications state.” The Cystic Fibrosis Trust indicates that this is not something that just comes and goes; it is there all the time for many people.”
“I want to quote a number of the organisations concerned. As I said at the beginning, I want hon. Members to listen to what people are telling us, rather than what I think they are telling us. That is important. It is the case that 153,000 people are living with Parkinson’s disease in the UK. That is often thought of as predominantly a movement disorder. However, between 50% and 60% of sufferers experience psychosis and 40% have depression. That is according to Parkinson’s UK. It says that those “who experience anxiety and depression found communication barriers between” health “departments, difficulties accessing patient notes, and a shortage of mental health professionals with the knowledge and skills” to meet their specific needs.”
“Evidence shows that people with diabetes are twice as likely to experience depression, and that they experience it more frequently and for longer than the general population. Research suggests that about half of all people with multiple sclerosis will experience depression at some point in their life, and almost half of people with arthritis say that the pain often or always makes them feel down or depressed. A 2022 survey by Kidney Research UK showed that of the more than 1,000 people who responded, 67% had experienced symptoms of depression, 27% had considered self-harm, and so on. It is not only quality of life that is hugely affected; the economic impact of this issue is vast in reducing people’s ability to work and in increasing health and social care costs. That puts the issue in context.”
“Recent research commissioned by Parkinson’s UK found that from an audit of unplanned admissions at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the length of stay for people with Parkinson’s experiencing mental ill health was 29 days, compared with three days for those not experiencing mental ill health. More than two thirds of people affected by neurological conditions reported that their mental health wellbeing needs were not being fully met, and 67% of all respondents—children, young people and adults—to a Neurological Alliance survey said that their mental wellbeing needs were being met to a small extent, or most often not at all. Diabetes is one of the fastest-growing health crises in the UK. Diagnoses of type 2 have almost doubled in 15 years, and there are now more than 5 million people living with that condition.”
“This debate is a timely opportunity for the Government to tell us more about what that looks like and how the NHS workforce plan will actually support that ambition. We know that at any one time, up to 40% of people with Parkinson’s will have depression, and up to 30% will experience anxiety—considerably higher than the 17% of the general population who will experience a common mental health problem. The majority of people living with the condition told Parkinson’s UK that their mental health symptoms were the most distressing aspect of it.”
“Rather than hear from me, I want hon. Members to hear from those organisations. I will quote pretty extensively from what they told me, and I will have asks for the Minister in due course. People with long-term physical health conditions are more likely than the general population to experience mental ill health. That combination leads to poorer quality health outcomes and a reduced quality of life. The key to improving mental health outcomes in people with long-term conditions is integration between physical and mental healthcare to provide holistic support. As the Minister knows, the Government’s forthcoming major conditions plan contains a commitment to “much closer alignment and integration between physical and mental health services” .”
“They are: Parkinson’s UK, which requested the debate in collaboration with others, Impact on Urban Health, the British Psychological Society, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Marie Curie, Versus Arthritis, Genetic Alliance UK, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation —a type 1 diabetes charity—Kidney Care UK, Kidney Research, the MS Society, Scope, Dementia UK, the Centre for Mental Health, the Royal College of Nursing, the King’s Fund, the Local Government Association and, of course, the excellent House of Commons research team, who produced a paper for this debate. I hope I have caught all the organisations that wrote to me. If I have not, I sincerely apologise to them. The information they provided was very wide-ranging, fascinating, informative, comprehensive and, of course, at times very worrying.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered mental health and long-term conditions. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I thank all the organisations that wrote to me to provide information, statistics, views, observations and asks on this important matter of mental health and long-term conditions. I want to set out the list of organisations that wrote in, because the fact that so many did so is testimony to the importance and depth of this issue to so many of our constituents.”
“First, thank you for your excellent stewardship of today’s event, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and salute her commitment to the rare diseases field, which I know she works very hard on. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for his compelling articulation of his personal experience. I think that we would all like to thank him for that. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for her response. And, of course, I thank the Minister for listening and responding. Finally, a big thanks to all of the organisations that I mentioned earlier. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered mental health and long-term conditions.”
“I understand that people might leave in a state of panic, but they must none the less face up to their responsibilities. New clauses 35 and 36 are an attempt to send the message out—not in a super-duper emotional way; I am not trying to threaten—that if a driver, whatever the circumstances, decides to leave the scene of an accident, they must face the consequences. I am not wedded to the sentence being five or six years in prison, or to the amount of the fine; we can debate and have dialogue about that—or I hoped that we would, but regrettably we have not. That is why I brought the new clauses back today. I have not said that I will push them to a vote; I do not want to. I just want people to bear them in mind, and to think about the impact that such actions have on families. Those people must be held to account.”
“It is our solemn duty to protect our constituents. If we cannot protect them from people who decide to leave them dead or dying, we must at least try to send a message, for the sake of their families, who seek not retribution, but justice. That is what I want to do. I will finish with a study by Dr Matt Hopkins at the University of Leicester, who interviewed dozens of hit-and-run drivers about why they failed to stop. A fair proportion of hit-and-run collisions, as they are called, involved drivers who did not have valid insurance and often did not have a valid licence. Others were banned from driving at the time of the collision. Still others were under the influence of drink and drugs. They were trying to avoid responsibility, not just for potentially killing someone, but for being drunk or on drugs, or whatever it was.”
“There were huge numbers of examples, and I do not want to repeat them. People know; they do not need things drawn out graphically. I repeat what I said in Committee: how would we reply to a constituent who said that we have the power to take action? Would we say, “It’s a shame, but there’s nothing much I can do about this. I’m sorry to hear that”? What if our constituent said, “You have the power, the capacity and the wherewithal to change this”? Would we just shrug that off and say, “Nothing to do with me. I’m sorry; there’s nothing I can do”? Would we sit there in silence? Would we look at the data and the information? What would we do? Well, I know what I want to do. I want to try to change the law, so that those who leave others dead and dying in the road are held to account, and face up to their actions.”
“Not all those cases result in injury or fatality, but there are families who know that their son, daughter, husband, brother, sister or relative was left on the road, dead or dying, by someone who just decided to go off. If a person decides to drive away and leave somebody dead or seriously injured on the road, they must face the consequences of their decision—that seems pretty simple—and explain in due course why they left the scene of the crime. Whatever the reason was, they must face the consequences for doing what they did. In Committee, I asked whether I needed to give hon. Members examples of what families have had to go through. I did not want to, because it was harrowing and distressing enough to hear about them, as the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will know from the case he mentioned.”
“If we average that out, it means that over 10 years, 31,000 men, women and children have been killed or seriously injured in collisions, and there have been a total of 130,000 casualties right across the piece, although I accept that the number includes very minor collisions. In a year, 1,766 people were killed—1,711 in Britain and 55 in Northern Ireland—and 28,941 were seriously injured. Road deaths have increased to pre-pandemic levels, and serious injuries are up 8%. I stand to be corrected on these figures, but that is an average of 85 people killed or seriously injured every year in each of our constituencies. Meanwhile, many drivers simply leave the scene of the collision—as many as 17,000 people, according to the Motor Insurers Bureau.”
“I assume there was some liaison between Departments on the matter. In Committee, I set out in a bit more detail why I was pursuing this issue. I go back to the point about how long it has been since the Government have moved on their position. It is 10 years since they said that they would undertake a full review of traffic offences. Regrettably, that has not happened, yet there seems to be an irrefutable case for it. What will it take for the Government to look at these issues affecting our constituents? I offer hon. Members a few stats, to put this matter into context. Every 16 minutes, someone is killed or seriously injured on the road in the United Kingdom. That is a stark figure.”
“Lord Paddick in the other place withdrew an amendment on 8 November 2021 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that would have amended the Road Traffic Act 1988 because Baroness Williams of Trafford said that her ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport understood the concerns raised and were “exploring options…including…the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1557.] I wrote to the Minister earlier this year to say that I was not tied to the letter of my new clauses and the penalties therein, but I do not appear to have received a response, which is regrettable. If I did receive a response, I apologise, but I do not believe that I did.”
“The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.” That was well over two years ago. What have the Government done in response? What has the Department for Transport done? It appears to me to be not a great deal. I raised the issue of leaving the scene of a collision in the Bill Committee earlier this year. I did not push my new clauses to a vote then, because I understood that either the Ministry of Justice or the Department for Transport were working on the matter, and could be liaising on it, especially as the Department for Transport had already recognised that some assessment of the situation must be undertaken, and had ostensibly committed to doing that.”
“For my part, I bring to the attention of colleagues my reasons for tabling my two new clauses; the groups that have supported me in doing so inclue RoadPeace, Cycling UK and Action Vision Zero. There was a Westminster Hall debate on 15 November 2021 about two petitions that had gathered more than 100,000 and 165,000 names respectively, calling for tougher sentences for, as they are colloquially known, hit-and-run drivers who cause death, and for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to be widened to include a failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives. The Department for Transport said in response to the petitions: “The Government takes this issue seriously.”
“New clause 36 would reduce the amount of time that the driver involved has to report the collision from 24 hours to two hours. Technology has moved on. The provision for 24 hours is an old element of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Everybody has the capacity to report things very quickly. I thank hon. Members who put their names to my new clauses. As I said, I sat on the Bill Committee for several weeks. We went through it line by line, and as I indicated, we listened to harrowing and distressing accounts of the experiences of victims—victims who literally went from the cradle to the grave. We have heard that again today. Colleagues who spoke in Committee will no doubt bring those accounts to the attention of a wider audience of hon. Members today. We have just heard one such example. Those accounts are worth listening to.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for speaking on the issue. For those of us who were on the Bill Committee—many of us are present today—it was in many cases quite distressing to hear of the experiences that so many people had had over the years. It is a tribute to Members present, including those who were on the Committee, that they are here to listen to those experiences. My new clauses 35 and 36 relate to traffic collisions. New clause 35 is intended to require drivers who are involved in a collision with a pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist to remain at the scene of the collision and report it to the police, or face the consequences of their decision not to.”
“I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It is important to indicate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) was also involved in supporting amendments on this matter. I welcome the cross-party agreement on this issue.”
“In light of today’s debate and the discussions that we had over several weeks in Committee, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a lacuna in legislation in a whole range of areas? I think he is suggesting that we need a cross-party approach, but time is running out. Does he think that certain things could be pushed through, but not in a rushed fashion; they would be considered carefully in the Chamber?”
“I call Will Quince to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.”
“The House of Lords has also asked for a more significant ability to intervene in relation to calling for public inquiries, as has the Institute for Government. Those bodies do not throw such recommendations and suggestions around for the fun of it, but because of our experience in this country, time after time, of a lack of justice for victims. I therefore wholeheartedly support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley for this public inquiry; I also absolutely and unequivocally support the right of the family to call for—to demand—this inquiry; and I support my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, who are absolutely fantastic in their pursuit of such issues. I thank them too.”
“In 2017, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee expressed concern about the ability of Parliament—hon. Members—to influence, potentially, when a public inquiry is called, and to some extent our oversight of it. That is our job, and we are here today to ask, demand, insist—whatever term we use—that the Government set up a public inquiry. It is for a public inquiry to consider all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Liverpool, Wavertree, so I will not prejudge. We have heard a list of issues that such an inquiry should look into, and I wholeheartedly agree. My job is to back up my colleagues and say that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has asked for this.”
“They are, as ever, eloquent in outlining clearly and unambiguously what should happen. They have set out the context and they have set the scene; I really hope that the Minister will listen. I will not take up much time, as I do not want to dilute what has already been said. The Inquiries Act 2005 is in place and provides the capacity for inquiries to be set up, because in the past, we did not have enough inquiries into the challenges to justice that people have. Whatever that inquiry is, we are here to ensure that people get justice. In that regard, the Inquiries Act enables us as a society to consider and respond to events of major public concern. Some 213,000 people signing a petition, including, as I said, 5,000 people in my constituency, indicates the public concern about this case.”
“It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and James’s family for initiating this petition, signed by 213,000 people, of whom 5,000 are in my constituency. The New Strand shopping centre in my constituency is where James was abducted from; he was subsequently abused and murdered. The case still resonates with my constituents, as it does across the country, but particularly in Merseyside. I pay tribute to James’s family for their bravery in coming here today and thank them for that. I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker).”
“Lord Mancroft in the other place said, “What the Government are doing today is passing socialist legislation, which is an odd thing for a Conservative Government to be doing.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 957.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not socialist legislation or Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru legislation? This is humane and compassionate legislation.”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House is perfectly entitled to make decisions having considered all the facts, not just selective facts? It can then decide that it does not want hunting trophies to be brought into this country, and it is perfectly entitled to make that decision.”
“I do not read The Times very often, but the hon. Member said that the African community leaders and conservationists he referred to rightly argue that it is not for us in the west to decide how they should manage their wildlife, and that that is why he cannot endorse the Bill. I am not telling them how to manage their wildlife, or demanding that they do it in a certain way. What I and many Members in this House are saying is that we do not want those disgusting trophies in this country. It is simple.”
“I think the hon. Gentleman indicated that only 1% of trophies have come to this country. If it is only 1%, enacting this piece of legislation will not make that much difference to those countries, will it?”
“I would like to inform Members that the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming during today’s debate for its series of procedural explainers—welcome.”
“Asked last week about the Government’s commitment to abolish national insurance contributions, the Minister said “we’d like to continue along that track”— more of a cul-de-sac, in my humble opinion—but today the Minister has been silent on that plan for a huge £46 billion unfunded tax commitment. Will the Minister tell us if it is still the Prime Minister’s plan to resurrect the Trussonomics mini-Budget package of last year?”
“This is as good a time as any to raise this point. If we are going to give the powers to the security services, which nobody objects to with the appropriate oversight, and ask them to do more assessments, more dataset investigations and so on, does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should give us assurances on resources? Given that we are asking the services to take on additional tasks in one fashion or another, does he agree that we have to set aside the resources? Perhaps, during his meeting with the Minister, he could tease that out a little bit more, because I do not want these powers and responsibilities to be given to the services without them having the appropriate resources— financial and staffing—to do their job.”
“Further to that point of order, Mrs Cummins. May I say a particular thanks to you for chairing this Committee today in such a fantastic and eloquent way?”
“T7. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that he would explore selling off the Government’s remaining stake in NatWest this year. As it stands, does he anticipate that this will result in a better or worse return for taxpayers, compared with the previous sales?”
“All those scenarios describe circumstances in which people can be convicted of serious crimes, despite making no significant contribution to that crime, so it is not correct to claim that “significant contribution” is already implied by law—it is not.”
“She described the following generic examples, all of which are based on real cases: a boy, cycling to and from an incident, who has no contact with the victim; a driver who drops friends off to collect drugs, and a fight happens outside the car; a passenger in a taxi, where others get out of the taxi and go to an area where a stabbing occurs, but that passenger has no contact with the victim; schoolchildren who gather for a fight and one of them dies, but they are all prosecuted even when they have had no contact with the victim and have no weapon, putting them all in risk of being convicted, without separating those who contribute and those who do not contribute; autistic children who find it difficult to assess what others will do; children exploited to sell drugs who get caught up in the actions of others; a woman whose violent boyfriend gets angry with some people and runs after them around a corner—she follows a short while later and pulls another person’s hair when she thinks he is being attacked; and a woman looking for her shoes during violent disorder.”
“In my view, it would be hard to object to the new clause on the grounds of unintended consequences as to do so would be an acknowledgement of the belief that some people deserve to be found guilty of offences—sometimes very serious offences, such as murder—despite making no significant contribution to the commission of those offences. As such, Ministers may claim that the amendment is unnecessary on the grounds that our current laws—whether “aid” or “abet” in statute or “assist” or “encourage” in common law—already imply a significant contribution or that the current flexibility of the law is part of its strength, as it means that it is for the jury to weigh up and decide on the facts of a particular case. That is not the case according to Dr Felicity Gerry KC, who was lead counsel in the Jogee case.”
“Of course, that would not prevent the use of alternative charges in cases involving multiple accused persons, nor would it prevent the prosecution of multiple persons for a crime in which they all made a significant contribution. It would not help anyone who is already convicted under this doctrine—I referred to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield—but it would be an important step in preventing the unfair and unjust use of joint enterprise laws against innocent people in the future. I understand that there may be some objections; as far as I am aware, the Government have not made any formal response to the proposed change but have let it be known that they are potentially resistant to the idea. I hope that the Minister's response to the Committee will clarify any of those objections.”
“It would simply add weight to the words of the 1861 Act, inserting: “by making a significant contribution to its commission” and thereby enshrining in statute a common-sense safeguard against inappropriate or over-zealous prosecutions. That is an important principle in a fair and effective justice system. By clarifying that someone must make a “significant contribution” to an offence in order to be criminally liable, the new clause seeks to restore Parliament’s original meaning and to correct a second wrong turn by the court with respect to joint enterprise. That would help to ensure that persons who make no significant contribution to a crime are never again convicted of being complicit in that crime.”
“That flexibility gives rise to uncertainties and injustice. For example, joint enterprise laws are being used to convict young people who are seen fighting, but not with the victim; young people who are not present at the scene; women who have no control over their boyfriends’ conduct; and young people who listen to certain kinds of music, where trials focus on character and culture rather than on contribution to a crime. In the recent case of Fiaz, the Court of Appeal suggested that a jury need not be specifically directed by the judge to consider the legal significance of a defendant’s contribution towards an offence. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear that case, so it falls to Parliament to enact safer legal frameworks. What would the new clause do?”
“That was, as the BBC said, a moment of “genuine legal history”. Research by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies identifies that the judgment has had little to no effect from joint enterprise changes, charges or convictions, and the Court of Appeal has decided that prisoners whose juries had only been directed to consider foresight, rather than intention, should not have a retrial. The situation is gravely unjust for many prisoners, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) tried to address it in his Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill. It is a myth that the Supreme Court fixed joint enterprise in 2016. It left under-addressed what constitutes “assist” or “encourage”. There is currently no threshold or test for whether someone made a significant contribution to a crime to be convicted of it.”
“Recent Crown Prosecution Service data, recorded and released as a result of legal action by Liberty and the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, suggest that black people are 16 times more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws, yet no assessment of the reasons for this shocking statistic—and it is shocking—has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service, or, as I understand it, by the Government. In 2016, the Supreme Court, in the case of R v. Jogee, said that the law on joint enterprise had taken a “wrong turn” for more than 30 years. It restored the proper law of intentions so that those who intended to commit or assist a crime, rather than those who only might have foreseen it, could be properly convicted.”