Comments on: The Forgotten Victimsʼ Rights

By: Satish Sekar

Satish Sekar — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 22:53:02 +0000

This article was intended to highlight the unfairness of the treatment of miscarriage of justice victims who are also victims of crime such as the Cardiff Five. The Fitted-In Project is concerned by the silence of advocates of Victimsʼ Rights on this. There is no question that they were victims of a criminal offence and as such their rights as victims of crime should have been championed by the Victimsʼ Commissioner among others. Sadly this has not been the case. Baroness Helen Newlove should explain the position of her Office in relation to victims of such crimes. I am not allowed to express my personal opinions unless they are shared by the FIP and have gone through the proper channels. This is why my article did not take a position on Joint Enterprise. In a personal capacity I have an opinion on the case of Jordan Cunliffe, but I cannot advocate it here, due to my obligations to follow the procedures of the Fitted-In Project. If this was the site of a magazine rather than that of a not for profit organisation that would not apply, but it does.

By: Press and Publicity Committee - FittedIn Project

Press and Publicity Committee - FittedIn Project — Sat, 03 Jan 2015 13:43:14 +0000

Please note that the Fitted-In Project does not have a position on Joint Enterprise. The Fitted-In Project belongs to its members, and currently, none of the members have taken any position on Joint Enterprise, which would need to be in the form of a resolution to a meeting of the FIP or a proposal for a project that we would conduct. Also, kindly note that the actual article "The Forgotten Victimsʼ Rights" was consistent with our projects on After-care and on Just Tariffs, but that it did not take a position on Joint Enterprise for the reasons stated above, even though individual members may well have strong views on Joint Enterprise.

By: William Day

William Day — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:29:13 +0000

The leading case is the High Court decision of Giorgianni, 103 in which the Court held that ‘aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring’ required that the defendant must intentionally assist or encourage the commission of offence by the principal offender, with knowledge of the essential matters which constitute the offence. Recklessness or wilful blindness will not suffice for liability.
.Associational elements and mere presence at the scene alone underpins Cunliffe’s murder conviction, the proper core elements of true culpability are missing from Cunliffe’s conviction. Considering all the evidence, Jordan Cunliffe has;
1, A Lack of intent to commit the offence
2. A lack of agreement to commit the offence
3. A lack of involvement in the commission of the offence
4 A lack of assistance in the offence
5 A lack of encouragement in said offence.
6. A lack of knowledge or preplanning that this spontaneous act was about to take place.
7. Even if Cunliffe had 20/20 vision he is not obliged in law to intervene because; at common law, there is no liability for an omission in the absence of an express or implied duty to act. Even the American Model Penal Code has codified this principle.
These are some of the reasons for supporting Jordan’s innocence, not because of his eyesight
“Per se”. However, his eyesight may well be relevant to other issues. For instance, one of the many tests in law is; would this crime have still happened had Cunliffe not have been present? The Crowns claim that being in a group would have given them (the accused) the bravado to challenge Mr Newlove. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Sorton or Swellings were relying on Cunliffe with his known eye condition to assist them in that regard. Neither is it the case that Cunliffe himself had any propensity to violence in his records. Neither is it the case that any witness has come forward to say that he gave those persons voluntary encouragement at any point during or before or during the attack. Suggestions that he made remarks after the event are not relevant to his alleged culpability. The evidence suggests the attack would have taken place even if he had not been there .Even if, Cunliffe’s presence gave them “involuntarily” encouragement that is not a source of liability, and in any event, it is known that there were girls that were close by watching events unfold when these actions took place. It may well be that it was they who provided bravado so why single out and charge Cunliffe upon such logic when many others present at the scene were not charged? It is far more likely to have encouraged Sorton and Swellings, because they (Sorton and Swellings) would not have wanted to lose face with those girls looking on. But again there is no evidence that that possible encouragement from the girls was intentional, so Jordan was charged and they were not, despite there being no fundamental difference between there situations?
We are all fallible, not just individuals, but also governments, societies, and in this case the law.