BRITISH judges have misinterpreted the law on controversial “joint enterprise” murder charges for decades, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a landmark judgement paving the way for hundreds of legal challenges.

A panel of Supreme Court justices, in a historic first sitting with the Privy Council’s judicial committee, concluded that the law on joint enterprise had been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges over the past 30 years.

Joint enterprise allows for individuals to be convicted of murder as a secondary party even if they weren’t the main perpetrator in committing the act.

It is also used in cases where a victim or victims die as a result of an attack by more than one person and it is not clear which of them caused the fatal injury.

But Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger ruled that senior judges had taken a “wrong turn.”

In 1984 they decided that a “secondary party” would be guilty of murder if he or she “foresaw” the possibility that the “principal” might act with intent to cause death or serious harm. The panel said jurors should view “foresight” only as evidence to be taken into account, not as proof.

The ruling came in the cases of the Crown v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen and sets a precedent which has wide-ranging ramifications for the criminal courts in England, Wales and the Commonwealth.

Ameen Jogee and Mohammed Hirsi, both in their twenties, were given life sentences at Nottingham Crown Court in March 2012 after being convicted of the murder of Paul Fyfe.

Jurors heard that Mr Hirsi stabbed Mr Fyfe at a house in Leicester in June 2011 while being encouraged by Mr Jogee. A judge imposed a minimum 22-year term on Mr Hirsi and a minimum of 20 years on Mr Jogee.

Mr Jogee’s minimum term was subsequently cut to 18 years by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court has allowed Mr Jogee’s appeal against conviction but said he will remain behind bars while prosecutors decide whether he should be retried.

Barrister Jo Cecil, who intervened in the case on behalf of Just for Kids Law, described the ruling as hugely positive.

“The extended law of joint enterprise resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice, most often concerning children, young people, and the vulnerable and had a disproportionate impact on young black men and boys,” she said.

“This judgment will impact on both future prosecutions and past convictions for the most serious offences. This will ensure that people are held accountable for their individual role in any offence and not simply the actions or intention of others.”