Joint Enterprise Under the Spotlight

On 27 October 2025, APPEAL’s London office hosted a rare and powerful conversation about the controversial use of joint enterprise in the criminal justice system. Around the table sat voices that seldom meet: legal professionals, civil society organisations, the Metropolitan Police, CPS representatives, academics, an MP, and—most importantly—people directly affected by joint enterprise prosecutions.

Dr Nisha Waller opened the discussion by sharing findings from APPEAL’s six-month court watch project (link to document). The evidence was stark: joint enterprise is often misapplied, with prosecutions built on presence rather than participation, racialised narratives replacing overt “gang” rhetoric, and millions spent on cases that frequently collapse or convict those with minimal involvement. The human cost? Years lost, families shattered, and young lives derailed.

Personal stories grounded the debate. Joseph Appiah, imprisoned for 12 years after being charged with murder at 15, asked: “Why are we all secondaries in it?” His case, described by his solicitor as “the worst of my career,” highlighted how Victorian-era laws collide with modern realities. Mothers from JENGbA and Say No to Joint Enterprise shared similar frustrations—cases pursued despite flimsy evidence, selective use of CCTV, and narratives that overshadow facts.

The CPS explained its charging frameworks, including the Threshold Test, which allows quick decisions in serious cases but sets a lower evidential bar. Participants questioned whether this accelerates weak prosecutions and prolongs remand for young defendants. Concerns also surfaced about police intelligence practices, particularly those disproportionately targeting Black youth.

Both CPS and police acknowledged the need for reform—better oversight, cultural competence, and anti-racist practices. The CPS pointed to its Disproportionality Action Plan, while the Metropolitan Police outlined steps to professionalise gang-related evidence. Yet scepticism remained: will these changes go far enough?

Legal experts stressed that bad practice is rooted in bad law. The vagueness of joint enterprise widens discretion and fosters injustice. Calls for legislative reform were echoed by Kim Johnson MP, who urged renewed pressure on government to deliver promised changes. Meanwhile, practitioners emphasised the need for courageous decision-making—challenging assumptions, granting bail in weak cases, and prioritising justice over conviction rates.

The roundtable ended with clear priorities:

APPEAL will continue working with partners to turn these insights into action. This conversation was not an end but a beginning—a collective commitment to dismantle injustice and build a fairer system.