Extinction Rebellion Aquitted

[enfieldspares]

Oops. Double post!

Yet I see now when it suits Ms Patel is going to give free passes to people convicted of past offences oh homosexuality and "apply the law as it is today" to what they were accused of in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/past-convictions-for-homosexual-activity-to-be-wiped-from-records-patel-to-announce

So what's good for that is maybe good for the "Colston Four" as the press has labelled them it seems. So Ms Patel herself is happy to excuse that which suits her. Maybe the Bristol jury thought the same?

Or maybe, as below, they decided to tell Ms Patel to mind her own business!

The role of the police is not to protect statues of slave merchants. It is to keep the peace. Which was the on the spot decision of the police on the ground. When to use the obnoxious Patel's own words there also was a righting of wrongs of the past!

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2022/jan/05/did-priti-patel-cross-a-line-in-urging-pursuit-of-the-colston-four

Edited January 6, 2022 by enfieldspares

[discobob]

37 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Well - given the LBC report is correct - and therefore the jury acquitted them - not because they were not guilty on the grounds that there was "reasonable doubt" - but on political grounds (the jury agreeing with what they were demonstrating about - I don't know where the law stands.  By that I mean that I don't know whether a retrial can be ordered, an appeal (by the prosecution) launched, or what (if anything) can legally be done.

In that case, somehow they managed to get a biased jury - because despite if they agree with them - it is if they have broken the law by their actions and personal bias should be set aside for the decision.

What next - Pedophile is murdered by someone, Jury finds him/her not guilty then where do we go next?? It is up to the Judge to decide on the sentence

[old man]

14 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I hear the BLM lot who pulled down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have all been acquitted. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

An absolute disgrace and illustration of how little the law means nowadays. 

Society being destroyed from within as well as without?

 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, discobob said:

personal bias should be set aside for the decision.

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

3 minutes ago, discobob said:

It is up to the Judge to decide on the sentence

As I understand it - the Judge can only pass a sentence after a guilty verdict - which didn't happen here.

 

 

 

[old man]

11 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

So what happens next time if someone burns down a hospital because it had ties to a pedophile or some other criminal offence because theyve taken offence. 

That's set a precidence of mob rule and now the genies out the bottle, what makes one persons feelings of offensive worth more than someone elses. I'd say it was a very dangerous ruling and certainly not one that reflects the average person's view at all. 

It's seemingly quite easy for the defence legal eagles to shape a jury by challenges to jurors who don't fit the required profile?

10 hours ago, oowee said:

 

That would be criminal damage or worse. I would agree it's a dangerous precedent but it's a decision of the jury. How do we change it? Take away trial by jury? Or can the judge just decide the case on the basis of the evidence that they hear, and direct the jury to find them guilty? 

Judges can be as equally crackers as jurors so society is in big trouble? Was there not a push to remove juries from very serious criminal trials?

[Scully]

It’s only the decision that can be questioned, nothing else. Whatever the reason behind them doing what they did, is irrelevant. They were charged with criminal damage, and acquitted, for whatever reason. 
Personally, if ripping down a public statue ( whoever it represents and the reasons for its installation ) and throwing it off a jetty isn’t criminal damage, then I don’t know what is. It’s a difficult one really, because Basically it’s mob rule…..’we don’t like it or what it represents, so we’re getting rid.’ That isn’t democracy, it’s civil unrest, and while I don’t mind a bit of anarchy, it’s representation isn’t threatening anyones way of life, and there were much better ways of having it removed.  
I can totally understand people resenting the statue and what it represented, but I don’t know when the statue was erected nor if there was a public outcry at the time it was mooted, but if not, then why not? If there wasn’t, then it’s simply jumping on the anti establishment bandwagon and virtue signalling of the most cynical kind. 
If our history is to be replaced because of what it represented with the benefit of a more enlightened society, then where do we stop? The Spanish have a lot of apologising and recompense to pay to indigenous South American people, as do the British for the Holy Wars and Crusades, and the church in general has a lot of apologising to do to all of us.
What about all those persecuted and imprisoned because of their sexual orientation? Some have been pardoned, but a posthumous pardon is meaningless, because they don’t know! 
Prejudice comes in many guises, and not simply because of the colour of your skin. 
If the jury found those four not guilty because of what their act represented, and not because of what they did, then logic dictates at least two of the Mount Rushmore presidents should be removed. I wish them good luck with that. 
We need to know why the jury thought they weren’t guilty of criminal damage. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Surely the judiciary are watched and monitored.

Surely something has to be done about this miscarriage of justice?

Or as Scully says, we have mob rule.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

we have mob rule.

In many respects - we do have mob (and criminal) rule. 

• We all know certain sections of the community are largely 'untouchable' - lots of local rural crime like quad bike and 4x4 theft, hare coursing etc not followed up. 
• We have the anti-vaxers invading testing sites (Milton Keynes) and abusing staff and throwing NHS kit in a skip. 
• We have effectively uncontrolled immigration across the channel
• We have BLM pulling down statues and being acquitted
• We have Extinction Rebellion blocking roads and vandalising business premises - acquitted

There are no doubt plenty of other examples.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Unfortunately there are plenty more.

[Stonepark]

50 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

 

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

As I understand it - the Judge can only pass a sentence after a guilty verdict - which didn't happen here.

 

 

 

The problem is the precedent, more specifically when the same mob appear in the middle of your shoot and start destroying feeders, vehicles etc because they are politically against and overwhelmed by their percieved cruelty of shooting... and the jury decides no punishment... what would your position be then?

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

what would your position be then

I'm not supporting the jury at all - but just pointing out that there seems little to be done as they have not broken any rules.  It seems that juries can legitimately 'acquit' even if they believe the defendant was guilty - which seems perverse to me.

From what I have read in this case, had I been on the jury - it would seem to me a straightforward 'Guilty' - but I don't know what the arguments were that led them to the verdict they reached.

[Stonepark]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm not supporting the jury at all - but just pointing out that there seems little to be done as they have not broken any rules.  It seems that juries can legitimately 'acquit' even if they believe the defendant was guilty - which seems perverse to me.

From what I have read in this case, had I been on the jury - it would seem to me a straightforward 'Guilty' - but I don't know what the arguments were that led them to the verdict they reached.

Apologies

[Scully]

You can express your thoughts on the Jeremy Vine show this aft’ apparently. Sorted. 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Apologies

None needed, but thanks anyway. 👍

[old man]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

It’s only the decision that can be questioned, nothing else. Whatever the reason behind them doing what they did, is irrelevant. They were charged with criminal damage, and acquitted, for whatever reason. 
Personally, if ripping down a public statue ( whoever it represents and the reasons for its installation ) and throwing it off a jetty isn’t criminal damage, then I don’t know what is. It’s a difficult one really, because Basically it’s mob rule…..’we don’t like it or what it represents, so we’re getting rid.’ That isn’t democracy, it’s civil unrest, and while I don’t mind a bit of anarchy, it’s representation isn’t threatening anyones way of life, and there were much better ways of having it removed.  
I can totally understand people resenting the statue and what it represented, but I don’t know when the statue was erected nor if there was a public outcry at the time it was mooted, but if not, then why not? If there wasn’t, then it’s simply jumping on the anti establishment bandwagon and virtue signalling of the most cynical kind. 
If our history is to be replaced because of what it represented with the benefit of a more enlightened society, then where do we stop? The Spanish have a lot of apologising and recompense to pay to indigenous South American people, as do the British for the Holy Wars and Crusades, and the church in general has a lot of apologising to do to all of us.
What about all those persecuted and imprisoned because of their sexual orientation? Some have been pardoned, but a posthumous pardon is meaningless, because they don’t know! 
Prejudice comes in many guises, and not simply because of the colour of your skin. 
If the jury found those four not guilty because of what their act represented, and not because of what they did, then logic dictates at least two of the Mount Rushmore presidents should be removed. I wish them good luck with that. 
We need to know why the jury thought they weren’t guilty of criminal damage. 

A good post?

[old man]

2 hours ago, Stonepark said:

 

The problem is the precedent, more specifically when the same mob appear in the middle of your shoot and start destroying feeders, vehicles etc because they are politically against and overwhelmed by their percieved cruelty of shooting... and the jury decides no punishment... what would your position be then?

You would possibly be arrested, lose your ticket and guns as you were armed?

By the time and if ever it was sorted out your kit would have been ruined after the care lavished on it?

That;s just the way it is for the law abiding? The others being outside of the law, as has become custom walk free to continue?

[Wymondley]

4 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

This is England. Not East Germany. Or anywhere else. The jury is there to guilt or non-guilt. And it does that by deciding what is right and what is just. And if you look back the prosecution was in many parts as a result of the meddling of Priti Patel. Maybe, just maybe, the people of Bristol (who composed this jury) don't take kindly to Ms Patel deciding what she thinks the local Chief Constable should or shouldn't choose to prosecute. The statue had no place back in 1895 when it was erected and it has no place today. Public works do not excuse wickedness. What next statutes of Hitler to celebrate his creation of the autobahn system in Germany? A plaque to Goebbels at the Volkswagen factory?

The jury are there to decide, on the evidence presented whether or not the defendants have broken the law, as it stands

Their personal feelings of what is right or just should not enter into it, if guilty then whatever "merit" there was to the crime can be taken into consideration by the judge in sentencing, then that sentence should be open to challenge if it's felt unduly harsh or lenient.

What you're advocating is akin to mob rule, when a jury can find not guilty even when the law has clearly been broken because they don't like the law.

Whatever next, letting off speeding motorists? Because no one likes a speed limit.

And who decides what statues are ok?

Perhaps those of French or Spanish decent may feel Nelson's column should topple, or Drake's statues should go.

What about the royal family, long history of subjugating the common people, should statues of past monarchs go?

Why stop at statues, lets get into the galleries and museums so we can all destroy whatever images of the past we don't agree with.

We could even start burning books we don't like... Was it you that mentioned Hitler?

 

 

[JohnfromUK]

28 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

Their personal feelings of what is right or just should not enter into it

In fact they can.  It's called jury equity.  I didn't know it was possible either, but apparently it is.

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[Wymondley]

51 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact they can.  It's called jury equity.  I didn't know it was possible either, but apparently it is.

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Not sure I agree with the principle.

However the rest of my post still stands.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact they can.  It's called jury equity.  I didn't know it was possible either, but apparently it is.

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Never knew that. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by oowee

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

Never knew that. 

Nor did I before this morning!

[old man]

Interesting maybe, no wonder the little finger pointing erk I saw on the news was in ecstasy frothing at the mouth on exit?

 

Can the prosecution challenge an acquittal UK?

36. Under current legislation, the defendant has a right of appeal at the end of the trial against both conviction and sentence but the prosecution has no equivalent right of appeal against an acquittal, whether as a result of a jury's decision or a judge's ruling that has the effect of bringing trial to an end early.

Any legal eagles here to expand/confirm?

[Weihrauch17]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact they can.  It's called jury equity.  I didn't know it was possible either, but apparently it is.

The jury can use "jury equity" (called Jury nullification in the US) to allow them to bring a verdict whereby "members of a criminal trial's jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway. Reasons may include beliefs that: the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

It's called very ill advised Jury Wokeness. It sets a precedent for anyone to take the law into their own hands and get off because the jury agree with what they have done.  That it is legal for them to do this and set such a precedent is insane and will only encourage more Woke disorder or worse.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Weihrauch17

[12gauge82]

The other half of this that hasn't been mentioned yet is the possibility of innocent people being convicted because a woke jury who take offence to something that wasn't actually illegal and not because they actually broke a law, I'd like to think there's more protection against that as a judge should throw it out if that were to happen, but after today, I certainly don't think it beyond the realms of possibility. 

If people stop having any faith in the law, chaos will ensue. 

[ditchman]

dont why we are all surprised...............i wonder what they are planning next...proberly roping nelsons column and pulling down with a stolen lorry

 

just wanna put it out there....that part of my family is southern irish ..family name Ryan....we had a couple of boats in the good old days running slaves and spices out of west africa....into county cork

should i throw myself into the habour at Great Yarmouth....will that make everything better ????

 

just thought i would ask

Edited January 6, 2022 by ditchman