Campaigners believe the “miscarriage of justice” for those convicted under joint enterprise is “on the same scale” as the Post Office Horizon scandal.
The doctrine enshrined in English common law has allowed courts to prosecute people who were not the primary actor in a crime but played a role, such as a getaway driver in a bank robbery.
But MPs warned “something has gone profoundly wrong” with the way the law has been used in recent decades and they have a proposed a reform to ensure only those who make a “significant contribution” to a crime can be prosecuted.
Labour MP Kim Johnson, referring to Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association campaigners, told the Commons: “In their own words, this is a miscarriage of justice on the same scale as the Post Office Horizon scandal.
“People are being sent to prison for crimes they did not commit.”
The Horizon scandal saw more than 700 Post Office branch managers around the UK prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their shops.
Ms Johnson raised the Horizon comparison as she moved her Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill, which the Government opposes, at second reading on Friday.
The MP for Liverpool Riverside said: “This is an incredibly difficult and sensitive topic because behind each of these joint enterprise cases there are victims of crime and their families, many of whom have lost loved ones in situations that most of us would find difficult to comprehend.
“And behind each of these joint enterprise miscarriages of justice there are people, loved ones, whole families whose lives have been torn apart by an unjust lifelong sentence, wrongly punished for the crime of another.”
Before 2016, a person could be found guilty by association if the court decided they could reasonably foresee the crime taking place, even if they themselves did not intend it.
In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that this aspect of joint enterprise had been misapplied, meaning that people could no longer be prosecuted for the possibility of foreseeing a crime taking place, but only if they intended to assist in committing it.
But Ms Johnson said the 2016 judgment is believed to have had “little or no effect” on the number of joint enterprise charges or convictions.
She said her Bill seeks to return the law to its “original intention”, saying: “Joint enterprise is currently wielded as a blunt instrument by the courts, allowing people who have not made a significant contribution to a murder to receive a mandatory life sentence.
“Lawyers and campaigners often refer to it as Russian roulette in terms of who is prosecuted or sentenced for life.
“My Bill seeks to enshrine in law that only where a person is proven to have significantly contributed to a crime can they be prosecuted under joint enterprise.”
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the “injustice has gone on for a very, very long time”, telling the debate: “Many of the predominantly young people that are ensnared by joint enterprise often come from inner city black communities.
“Their families are devastated, often lack the media and political connections in order to mount an urgent and rapid legal case or campaign and (they) end up spending several years in prison for an offence they did not commit, and their lives are subsequently damaged severely.”
Conservative MP Philip Davies faced a shout of “disgraceful” from the Opposition benches after he said he opposed the Bill, adding in his 38-minute speech: “In many regards, the law on joint enterprise doesn’t actually go far enough.”
Justice minister Gareth Bacon raised concerns over the proposals as he outlined why the Government would oppose it.
Mr Bacon said the cases tend to be “extremely complex” and involve a “significant body of detailed evidence which needs to be considered in detail in order to truly understand what happened”.
The minister said the threshold for anyone to be prosecuted and found guilty under the joint enterprise principle is “very high”, explaining: “They must intend to assist or encourage the commission of the crime and therefore must know of the existing fact necessary to make it criminal.
“If the crime requires the principal to have a particular intent then the secondary must intend to assist or encourage the principal to act with that intent.”
Mr Bacon said the 2016 Supreme Court judgment made a “narrow” change to the law, adding it has been “widely misunderstood as meaning that all convictions under joint enterprise would now be found not guilty on appeal”.
Debate on the Bill was adjourned until June 21, with Ms Johnson saying of the minister: “He did say ‘not support today’, so I am taking that positively and I’m asking whether he would consider looking at reviewing that.”