Abdullah has been convicted for murder and section 18 GBH with intent under the joint enterprise law , he has been punished for a crime he did not commit. Abdullah had no knowledge that the principle offender was carrying a weapon or his intentions. He admits his presence at the scene along with 5 others.
Abdullah handed himself in and cooperated with the police from the onset. He had been charged at the early stages of the investigation even though all evidence collated pointed towards the principle offender. Three other co defendants were given a lesser charge which they pleaded guilty to.
During the trial the CPS withheld evidence that would have been in favour of Abdullah’s defence, he was reliant on the evidence from the three other co defendants to prove his innocence. Abdullah was the only one to be charged with murder under the joint enterprise doctrine.
One off the co defendant was convicted of conspiracy to supply committing an unlawful act and admits and accepted the fact that she had witnessed the principle offender withdraw the fire arm from her car before entering the premises, however it was doubtable that she knew what his intentions were. The CPS concluded this was sufficient enough to not have a case against her however these views were completely different in Abdullah’s case. She was not charged under the joint enterprise doctrine although her actions and knowledge leading up to the incident clearly fall under the joint enterprise law.
The CPS manipulate and take advantage of the joint enterprise doctrine and use it to single out certain individuals. Abdullah was singled out and was convicted under this unjust law. Abdullah was clearly found guilty by association.