Howard, Andrew

Andrew Howard was convicted in June 2001 of robbery and received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in July 2002.

Mr Howard was convicted as one of a group who had committed a street robbery.

He was convicted on identification evidence from the victim, who said that Mr Howard had physically attacked him.

Mr Howard’s defence was that he was present near to the scene of the robbery, knew those who had been responsible, but had nothing to do with the offence.

The jury therefore had to consider whether Mr Howard had been a physical assailant, whether he had been present as part of the group but not directly involved in the robbery, or whether he had not been present.

The jury asked the judge if Mr Howard could be guilty of robbery if he knowingly went with the other perpetrators and he knew they were going to commit the offence.

The trial judge merely directed the jury that “if you are involved in a joint enterprise, you know perfectly well what is afoot and if somebody does it, you are equally guilty. That is common sense and good law.”

Following review, the CCRC concluded that the judge’s directions in relation to joint enterprise were deficient and inadequate.

The judge did not properly explain to the jury the meaning of “joint enterprise” when he should have done.

The CCRC further considered that a proper direction in this case should have included instructions that mere presence and knowledge were not enough for joint enterprise to be made out.

The CCRC referred the conviction in February 2003.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in December 2003.