The law in England and Wales (as in Australia and other jurisdictions) enables a person to be convicted of an offence committed by another using complicity liability, sometimes termed ‘joint enterprise’. In England and Wales, joint enterprise has been widely criticised for: failing to distinguish between the moral and legal culpability of the person who commits the substantive offence and those on the periphery of it; being used disproportionality in cases involving young men from black and mixed ethnic backgrounds; and for lacking legal legitimacy. Thus, it was hoped that the abolition of the extended form of complicity liability in England and Wales – known as Parasitic Accessorial Liability (PAL) – by the Supreme Court in 2016, would rectify these issues. Reporting on interviews with police detectives, and prosecution and defence lawyers in England involved in cases of serious youth violence, this paper argues that the problems associated with 'joint enterprise’ in England and Wales remain, despite the change in the law. This is due to the only ‘subtle shift’ in practice and a continued reliance on racialised inferences about young men from black and mixed ethnic backgrounds. We suggest changes in practice are required, alongside meaningful law reform
