Release Date 31 October 2016

Dr Beatrice Krebs, School of Law lecturer at the University of Reading, said:

"In its decision to reject the challenge of 13 guilty verdicts made under the joint enterprise law, the Court of Appeal stresses that reversing injustice is not the only goal. Other interests also need to be taken into account, namely the interests of the victims and the victims' families, the public interest that there be finality to legal proceedings and legal certainty.

"It therefore applies a very demanding test in considering whether leave to appeal should be granted following the Supreme Court's decision in Jogee: the would-be appellant has to show that he has been done a ‘substantial injustice'.

"To do so, he would have to show that it is likely that, if properly directed (in the terms of Jogee rather than the prior, mistaken view of the law), the jury would have reached a different result than it did. None of the would-be-appellants whose cases were being considered by the Court of Appeal managed to discharge this test.

"This is because the facts were such that it was clear to the Court that the jury would very likely have returned the exact same verdict, even if it had not been directed in terms of parasitic accessory liability."