After deciding which case law to use this is the exact conversation that took place between the trial Judge and Jordan’s defence team. This conversation has been extracted from original transcripts.

Mr Woodcock(prosecution) – Well, we submit that the safer way is to extract the step down route to verdict from Powell and English for our purposes.

The Recorder – Well, I think the appropriate way then is for me to do that and then submit it to you for correction.

Mr Nolan – That would be a great kindness, my Lord. Thank you. My only concern – and I speak entirely candidly about this – is that the Jury at some stage may have to be directed to consider whether the act of the knife man, the actual killer, was fundamentally different from that which may have been contemplated by the other two. If that is their view, then it may be that shuts out manslaughter. If, on the other hand, that is not their view then manslaughter, albeit perhaps a generous option, would be available by a second count. So I am very anxious that there is to be a second count added. But there is a pitfall. Your Lordship will find it more or less in the middle of Paragraph 19-33 of Archbold. Powell and English seems to suggest that if, notwithstanding the joint enterprise intent (if I can put it that way), the killer goes far beyond or fundamentally differently from that which is contemplated, then that does not lead to a conviction for either murder or manslaughter for the secondary parties. But if your Lordship proposes to leave it on the basis that notwithstanding that, if what happened was consequence of the joint enterprise but those (other than the killer) did not contemplate or foresee that the killer would kill but that some harm would result from their joint enterprise, then I am content that manslaughter be left.

Whilst I am on my feet, could I voice one concern that I have on behalf of Jordan Towers. It is this. On the evidence we heard both this morning from Curtis and earlier in the case from Marsha Newby, his action of throwing the rock – a self confessed action – occurred very late in the narrative. Marsha Newby had it that it was when Mr Johnson was trying to get back to his gate.

THE RECORDER – Well, you established this morning that it was after the stabbing.

Mr Nolan – Well, the jury may not accept that, but on Marsha Newby’s evidence it seems to be so. Curtis said it was when he was wrestling with Mr Johnson and he had already been stabbed. Marsha Newby put it even later than that, when Mr Johnson was retreating and then got to the wall where he fell. If that was the only evidence of joint enterprise involved on the part of Towers, because of the chronology of events we will submit to the Jury that could not make him guilty of either murder or manslaughter because the fatal wound had already been inflicted.

THE RECORDER – But he may be guilty of something else.

MR NOLAN – He may be guilty of disorderly conduct or violent disorder or whatever, but not liability for the death, if that is their view of the timing of events. I simply put your Lordship on notice that will have to covered in some aspect of your Lordship’s summing up.

THE RECORDER – Right. Subject to the formulation of the specific questions, does that cover joint enterprise?