Joint enterprise prosecutions: what the CPS’s new figures mean for defendants

25 Sept

The Crown Prosecution Service published its second annual report on joint-enterprise homicide and attempted-homicide cases on 24 September 2026. The figures are important, but they do not change the law or decide whether any individual prosecution is sound. They offer a clearer picture of how often this form of allegation arises, who is affected and how the CPS oversees these serious cases.

What does the report show?

The CPS’s manually collected dataset covers 188 cases involving 538 defendants finalised between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026. These are cases concluded during that period, not necessarily offences or charges first brought during it. Of those defendants, 19.1% were under 18 and 58.4% were under 25. Most cases — 79.8% — involved three or fewer defendants. The report also records 218 victims and survivors, adding victim data for the first time.

A separate, system-generated dataset records 460 completed defendant prosecutions, of which 340 ended in convictions and 120 did not. These are different datasets with different inclusion rules: the 538 and 460 figures must not be treated as the same group. Nor does a conviction recorded in a flagged case necessarily mean a conviction for the originally flagged homicide offence; the eventual charge may have changed. The CPS warns that the data is incomplete in places, local numbers are small, and two years of reporting cannot reliably establish a trend or prove that any charge was improper.

What is joint enterprise?

In a secondary-liability case, the prosecution may allege that a person who did not carry out the main criminal act intentionally assisted or encouraged the person who did. The issues are what each defendant actually did and what that defendant intended. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The doctrine can apply beyond homicide, although this particular monitoring report covers homicide and attempted homicide cases.

The CPS’s published charging guidance, reflecting R v Jogee, says that foresight that another person might commit a further offence can be evidence of intent, but is not itself a substitute for intent. Simple presence at a scene, friendship or association with a group is not enough on its own. Equally, a person can sometimes assist or encourage a crime without being physically present. The full context and the evidence against each individual matter.

Why does this matter to defendants?

The CPS says every case covered by its monitoring scheme is reviewed by a senior Case Management Panel, which examines the evidence against each defendant, the proposed application of secondary liability and reasonable lines of inquiry. That oversight is significant, but it does not remove the need for independent defence scrutiny or alter the prosecution’s burden of proof.

In practice, early advice should focus on the alleged act of assistance or encouragement, the evidence of intention and the distinction between a principal and a secondary party. Messages, phone and location material, CCTV, witness accounts and the sequence of events may support or undermine an allegation. For children and vulnerable defendants, age, development, neurodivergence and the speed of events may be particularly relevant to whether an inference about intention is safe. The CPS guidance expressly requires care with those factors.

The report notes that a consultation on gang-related offending and musical expression as evidence has closed, with a CPS response expected later in 2026. No new rule on music or lyrics is announced by this report. Where such material is relied upon, its relevance and context should be examined in the individual case.

Joint-enterprise cases can carry exceptionally serious consequences. Anyone questioned or charged should seek advice promptly and avoid assuming that either association with others or the absence of a physical attack settles the case.