Jordan’s defence case was that he was not part of any joint enterprise. He denied throughout any involvement in either incident and this was later proven beyond doubt. The prosecution alleged that the throwing of the rock was an act of participation because of the evidence of Marsha Newby in which she said the rock was aimed for Kevin. So it was up to the jury to decide if she was telling the truth. This was a spontaneous fight, Jordan could have in no way known what was going to happen.

The law of joint enterprise clearly states that the Crown recognises that a person who joins in with the violence after the fatal blow cannot be found guilty of murder or manslaughter because he was not party to the violence in which the fatal blow occurred. With this in mind Jordan’s defence team told the court that all evidence had established that when the rock left Jordan’s hands the fatal blow had already occurred and so he could not be guilty of the charge against him.

There is a transcript of the conversation between Jordan’s defence team and the trial Judge in which the Judge agrees that the rock was thrown after the fatal blow had occurred and that Jordan cannot be held liable for murder or manslaughter.

The law of joint enterprise also states that there is no obligation on a person to leave the scene where spontaneous violence erupts as long as that person stands by and does nothing to further the commission of the offence. Jordan did nothing to further the commission of the offence, in fact the commission of the offence had already occurred by the time of Jordan’s alleged participation.

Again the law also states that you have to join in with the violence, and then you have to join in with knowledge or intent. Jordan did not join in the fight and so should not be held responsible for someone else’s actions.

Jordan’s defence case was based on the English and Powell case law. This case law states that the jury should be asked to consider the fundamental difference between the use of a knife and the throwing of the rock. Asking the jury to consider such a thing is crucial in a secondary party – joint enterprise case. The judge never directed the jury to consider fundamental difference and it is thought that if they were asked to consider it their verdict could have been one of not guilty against Jordan.