THE joint enterprise law - which has seen people in Bradford convicted of murder despite not striking the fatal blow - has been wrongly interpreted by criminal trial judges over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The judgement, delivered at a hearing in London, could lead to people convicted of joint enterprise crimes mounting appeals.

The Supreme Court justices said prosecutors, judges and jurors must take a different approach when dealing with such defendants.

They said it was not right that someone should be guilty merely because they foresaw that a co-accused might commit a crime.

Campaign group JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) said the ruling gave "another option" to appeals by people convicted under joint enterprise.

Jan Cunliffe, a co-founder of JENGbA, referenced the Bradford cases of convicted murderers Andrew Feather and Laura Mitchell as examples of joint enterprise convictions, and said: "There are quite a lot of cases in Bradford that come to us.

"I think some are already looking towards an appeal, but today will add weight to whatever they have. It is now another option that was not available until today."

Andrew Feather was convicted of murder under the principle of joint enterprise in the Barry Selby acid attack killing. Feather, of Heysham Drive, Holme Wood, is serving a minimum 26-year sentence for murder after he was convicted of being the getaway driver in the Barry Selby killing for which three other men were also convicted of murder.

Mr Selby, 50, was shot in the leg and had sulphuric acid poured over him at his home in Rayleigh Street, East Bowling, Bradford, in October 2013.

An appeal against his conviction had already been started.

Laura Mitchell, her boyfriend Michael Hall and two other young men were given life sentences in October 2007 for the murder of Andrew Ayres, 50, who was attacked in the car park of the King’s Head pub in Halifax Road, Buttershaw, Bradford. They were all told they would serve at least 13-and-a-half years.

Judge Stephen Gullick said Mr Ayres's death was caused by Carl Holmes, then 21, stamping on his face as he lay on the ground, leaving him unrecognisable.

The Court heard four defendants took part in a violent attack on Mr Ayres and two of his friends, following a row over a taxi. The prosecution told the jury anyone who participated in a joint enterprise with someone who causes the death of another was also guilty.

The judge said he was sentencing Mitchell, Hall, and Henry Ballantyne on the basis that they were secondary parties to the death. Mitchell appealed against her murder conviction, saying she had played no part in the fatal attack on Mr Ayres, had not encouraged it and had no idea that he might be killed. Her appeal was rejected.

A panel of five Supreme Court justices analysed the issue of joint enterprise at a hearing in London in October when considering an appeal by Ameen Jogee, who was convicted of murder after egging on a friend to stab a former policeman, Paul Fyfe.

The Supreme Court has now allowed Jogee's appeal against conviction but he will stay in prison while lawyers decide whether he should be retried.

Speaking before the ruling, Mr Fyfe's widow said if Jogee's appeal was upheld it could mean killers will "literally be getting away with murder".

Tracey Fyfe said she regarded Jogee as culpable for her husband's death because he knew what Hirsi was doing and was egging him on.

She said: "I think it is a very important law and it think it would be quite devastating for the victims' families like us, which would mean that criminals like Ameen Jogee would literally be getting away with murder."