JohnfromUK Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Six Extinction Rebellion activists have been acquitted by a jury - contrary to a judges direction. They were charged with criminal damage after vandalising an office building owned by Shell. Despite the Judge directing the jury that they had 'no defence in law', the jury found them not guilty. The Judge specifically said that even if their actions were "morally justified", that did not provide a lawful excuse. So - are they to be given free license to cause criminal damage now? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Anarchy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said: Anarchy! "in the UK" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matone Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Sends a clear message to our ever more loony society! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 You couldn't make it up could you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 I suspect some of the jury may have been less than safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 I am so speechless - I had a hard time typing this!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 that’s nothing today bristol police APOLOGISED to four protesters for arresting them outside the colston statue hearing no doubt they will sue now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Hello, I bet Greta is giving the 👍 , maybe a jury member was nobbled 🤔, at least some good news today, former post office employees won their case at the high court, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
243deer Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 &%&%&% ***(&&(*& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 I am not sure what the solution is when a jury bases its verdict on the jurors own opinions of what the law should permit - rather than what the law states. Perhaps the modern 'woke' public is unsuitable to forming a jury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Quote at least some good news today, former post office employees won their case at the high court, I was professionally aware of the problems with the Horizon system about 15 years ago and so were the Post Office. It has been a total disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchers Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 Its quite simple, go round to their houses and do the same as they did, now what would be the verdict be? ask the jury! if they did this to your house, would you be pleased🤬 Simple philosophy to me, dont do what you wouldn't want done to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob85 Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 If a judge directs a jury and they contradict a judges decision is it not a case that the the jury will be dismissed and the trial heard again? When I done jury service we were specifically told by the judge that judges and lawyers(barristers) deal with matters of law, we are there to determine guilt, if there is no defence in law then a jury cannot determine that they are not guilty, if the jury doesn't agree with the law/judges decision then they could and should be held in contempt of court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted April 23, 2021 Report Share Posted April 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Rob85 said: If a judge directs a jury and they contradict a judges decision is it not a case that the the jury will be dismissed and the trial heard again? When I done jury service we were specifically told by the judge that judges and lawyers(barristers) deal with matters of law, we are there to determine guilt, if there is no defence in law then a jury cannot determine that they are not guilty, if the jury doesn't agree with the law/judges decision then they could and should be held in contempt of court but you forget - this is an active protest group supported by a majority of left wing leaning people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted April 25, 2021 Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 On 23/04/2021 at 21:48, Rob85 said: If a judge directs a jury and they contradict a judges decision is it not a case that the the jury will be dismissed and the trial heard again? When I done jury service we were specifically told by the judge that judges and lawyers(barristers) deal with matters of law, we are there to determine guilt, if there is no defence in law then a jury cannot determine that they are not guilty, if the jury doesn't agree with the law/judges decision then they could and should be held in contempt of court I forget the term no but there is technically a 3rd outcome from a jury, other than guilty, or not guilty, it effectively means we find them guilty but don't believe they deserve to be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 25, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 52 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: I forget the term no but there is technically a 3rd outcome from a jury Are you thinking of the 'not proven' verdict? I believe (in the UK anyway) it only applies in Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted April 25, 2021 Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said: Are you thinking of the 'not proven' verdict? I believe (in the UK anyway) it only applies in Scotland. Cheers for the suggestion I was aware of that in Scots law, I've had a quick look and I believe its called jury equity/perverse jury. It's basically when a jury believes the person is guilty or is directed by a judge but equities the accused anyway as they do not believe they should be punished. It sounds like it could be relevant in this case although I haven't looked at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted April 25, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: I believe its called jury equity/perverse jury. I've not heard of it before. It does sound appropriate for the jury's views in this case. I wonder if the jury were aware of that option - or indeed if it was a viable option in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted April 25, 2021 Report Share Posted April 25, 2021 11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: I've not heard of it before. It does sound appropriate for the jury's views in this case. I wonder if the jury were aware of that option - or indeed if it was a viable option in this case? It's not something that I know much about, just heard of it in the past and when you posted this it reminded me as it does seem appropriate, I'll be interested if anymore information comes out of the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted May 2, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2021 It seems that there is now a ploy to try to ensure jury trial by ensuring that the level of criminal damage exceeds £5k (below which jury trial isn't used I assume) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9533319/Extinction-Rebellion-deliberately-causing-criminal-damage-protests-jury-trials.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted May 6, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2021 And they get off on a technicality again https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9547365/Extinction-Rebellion-activists-blocked-printing-plant-acquitted.html Shows how our laws are both unfit for purpose and misunderstood by the CPS if they cannot bring watertight cases in these very clear instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted May 6, 2021 Report Share Posted May 6, 2021 A succinct summation again John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 6, 2021 Report Share Posted May 6, 2021 10 hours ago, JohnfromUK said: And they get off on a technicality again https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9547365/Extinction-Rebellion-activists-blocked-printing-plant-acquitted.html Shows how our laws are both unfit for purpose and misunderstood by the CPS if they cannot bring watertight cases in these very clear instances. What a joke our laws and society have become Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted May 17, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2021 Finally some convictions https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9585963/Five-Extinction-Rebellion-protesters-convicted-printing-press-blockade.html Not much of sentences though. No disincentives for others there. Minor fines to an organisation that doesn't seem short of money ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.