The Case Of Jordan Cunliffe

[Alyce]

Jordan Cunliffe  was convicted of the murder of Garry Newlove in 2008. Jordan Cunliffe did not participate in the attack on Mr. Newlove but was convicted under joint enterprise law, whereby he was found guilty along with Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton on the basis that he was nearby at the time of the attack and was associated with the two boys involved in the altercation. Jordan Cunliffe’s conviction shows the flawed nature of joint enterprise law, particularly considering Jordan suffers from acute keratoconus, an eye condition which severely impairs Jordan’s vision meaning he would not have properly seen the attack never mind have participated in it. Jordan Cunliffe, 15 at the time of the attack, is currently serving 12 years in prison for a crime he simply happened to be in close proximity to.

[Alyce]

http://www.miscarriagesofjustice.org/case-files/cases-of-interest/jordan-cunliffe

[Alyce]

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/justice4jordancunliffe/about/

[lookout]

He should have learned to choose his friends better than he did. He must have known what they were going to do so why didn't he run the other way.?
Sorry,,I've no sympathy with this one.

[Alyce]

He should have learned to choose his friends better than he did. He must have known what they were going to do so why didn't he run the other way.?
Sorry,,I've no sympathy with this one.

Witnesses were allowed to suggest that Jordan had walked off smugly and the question was never asked of them “Would your opinion of why Jordan would be walking rather than running change if it were put to you that he were blind?” It would take a particularly heartless person to conclude that Jordan was walking smugly anywhere, at any time. Yet thanks to every department within the justice system, that is exactly the impression that the jury and public alike have been encouraged to have. Very rarely would a blind person 'run'

[nugnug]

it might be becouse he was nearly blind at the time.

[Alyce]

Jordan isn’t a ruthless gang member, he’s an innocent young boy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Jordan is the one who, when he arrived at where Mr Newlove lay on the street, stopped and asked his daughter what had happened, who had done it and was told that an ambulance was on it’s way before he carried on up the street. Not run in the opposite direction!

After Jordan got to the end of the street he bumped into a community police support officer and gave him his full name and address. In a final twist of irony, had it not been for Jordan doing this, the police would not have found Stephen Sorton alone and cleaning himself up and he would not have been apprehended. Or at least not until much later.

[sandra L]

Your post, lookout, tells everyone who bothers to check their facts, that you did not read either of the links provided by other posters, before making your last comment.

"He must have known what they were going to do?" OK, so he must have known that Mr Newlove was going to come out of his house and remonstrate with them over damage caused by other youths (yes, this was a wrongful accusation from the off!!!) He must have known that this mistake by Mr Newlove was going to get heated (perhaps because Mr Newlove was unaware he was remonstrating with the wrong people?) He must have known that a single blow would kill Mr Newlove?

Jordan and his friends were not involved in the incident that brought Mr Newlove out of his house in the first place - they were being held to account, quite aggressively, for something they had not done. How could anyone have foreseen that?

Jordan Cunliffe, like so many others convicted under Joint Enterprise, was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But, because of the way Joint Enterprise doctrine is being used, any young person could find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, simply by doing what young people do - hanging out with their mates.

We had a case here in Scotland not so long ago - an argument erupted (young people, but not as young as Jordan)- and a few punches were thrown. One connected, and the recipient of the blow died - he apparently fell backwards and hit his head, that injury being enough to kill him. No-one was convicted of anything - it was adjudged to be a tragic accident - so, you see, it's something of a lottery - unless there's a mindset which wants to see foul play and murderous intent, common sense prevails.

The fact remains, Jordan Cunliffe could not have forseen the events of that evening, and he most certainly could not have seen events as they spontaneously emerged. He and his friends had not set out that evening on any "Joint Enterprise" to get into any sort of trouble whatsoever - they were drawn into events because other youths had been causing trouble, and Jordan and his friends had been mistakenly  "identified" as being those other youths.

[Alyce]

Your post, lookout, tells everyone who bothers to check their facts, that you did not read either of the links provided by other posters, before making your last comment.

"He must have known what they were going to do?" OK, so he must have known that Mr Newlove was going to come out of his house and remonstrate with them over damage caused by other youths (yes, this was a wrongful accusation from the off!!!) He must have known that this mistake by Mr Newlove was going to get heated (perhaps because Mr Newlove was unaware he was remonstrating with the wrong people?) He must have known that a single blow would kill Mr Newlove?

Jordan and his friends were not involved in the incident that brought Mr Newlove out of his house in the first place - they were being held to account, quite aggressively, for something they had not done. How could anyone have foreseen that?

Jordan Cunliffe, like so many others convicted under Joint Enterprise, was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But, because of the way Joint Enterprise doctrine is being used, any young person could find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, simply by doing what young people do - hanging out with their mates.

We had a case here in Scotland not so long ago - an argument erupted (young people, but not as young as Jordan)- and a few punches were thrown. One connected, and the recipient of the blow died - he apparently fell backwards and hit his head, that injury being enough to kill him. No-one was convicted of anything - it was adjudged to be a tragic accident - so, you see, it's something of a lottery - unless there's a mindset which wants to see foul play and murderous intent, common sense prevails.

The fact remains, Jordan Cunliffe could not have forseen the events of that evening, and he most certainly could not have seen events as they spontaneously emerged. He and his friends had not set out that evening on any "Joint Enterprise" to get into any sort of trouble whatsoever - they were drawn into events because other youths had been causing trouble, and Jordan and his friends had been mistakenly  "identified" as being those other youths.

Thanks for the backup Sandra xx

[sandra L]

Sorry! I'm terrible for cross-posting!

[sandra L]

Sorry Tracy, I hadn't noticed your last comment. I believe Jordan's case is an absolute travesty - an innocent young lad caught up in the misuse of Joint Enterprise doctrine. It's such a terrible waste of a young life.

The "dragnet" approach of JE is a serious threat to all of our young people - just being in the vicinity of a crime can be enough to have them arrested and convicted - right thinking people should be appalled. Part of the problem is that people don't know about JE, or they don't believe it could ever happen to them, which is why I believe it's so important to raise awareness about it.

I'll be away for the rest of the day, so won't be able to post.

[nugnug]

how can someone posibly be held responsible for something they could not see.

[bob]

Jordan Cunliffe  was convicted of the murder of Garry Newlove in 2008. Jordan Cunliffe did not participate in the attack on Mr. Newlove but was convicted under joint enterprise law, whereby he was found guilty along with Adam Swellings and Stephen Sorton on the basis that he was nearby at the time of the attack and was associated with the two boys involved in the altercation. Jordan Cunliffe’s conviction shows the flawed nature of joint enterprise law, particularly considering Jordan suffers from acute keratoconus, an eye condition which severely impairs Jordan’s vision meaning he would not have properly seen the attack never mind have participated in it. Jordan Cunliffe, 15 at the time of the attack, is currently serving 12 years in prison for a crime he simply happened to be in close proximity to.

Seems fair enough.

[Alyce]

Jordan Cunliffe was convicted on the basis that he saw people he knew do something but did nothing to prevent it and didn’t demonstrate that he had withdrawn from them when he saw it. However Jordan can’t see but the courts put a media ban on his visual impairment being reported.
I suppose that's 'fair enough' too eh bob?

[nugnug]

i dont belive the jury got to hear it ethere did they.