Sycamore Gap tree at Hadrian's Wall 'felled overnight'

They also caused damage to a UNESCO world heritage site.

Right, but they didn't put people's lives in danger, nor were they trying to. So they don't meet the most extreme levels of offence. IANAL, but that's my reading.

The judge has hinted at lengthy custodial sentences

Going to jail for sure, but I think 18 months is more likely than six years.
 
Right, but they didn't put people's lives in danger, nor were they trying to. So they don't meet the most extreme levels of offence. IANAL, but that's my reading.



Going to jail for sure, but I think 18 months is more likely than six years.

Right, but you only said chopping down some random tree. You completely neglected the other part of their crime.
 
still standing see the previous pic

there is some comparison with the unconvicted colston statue scrotes - millions in tax payers money - but some judge recommended the jury to let them off,
when many thought incarcerate them, like the just stop oil folks disrupting peoples livelihoods.

Is this a thing you have made up in your head? If not, please post solid evidence that the people who pulled down the Colston statue were found not guilty because "some judge recommended the jury to let them off".

As I recall at the time the general expectation was that they would not be found guilty by a jury, because a lot of people thought the statue of a slave trader was offensive and should have been removed from the city centre years before.

The defence put forward several arguments to explain the actions of the defendents (unlike the Sycamore Gap morons they did not deny what they had done) and the judge explained the options to the jury. I have seen no evidence that the "judge recommended the jury to let them off".
 
Context is he was talking purely about the tree and made no mention of the wall.

He opined that this is not just the felling of a random tree, so a punishment greater than a fine is appropriate. Subsequently clarifying that his reasons for this not being just being the felling a random tree include the damage to a historic wall, does not appear to conflict with the earlier post.

I really can't see that it's worth arguing about.
 
I don't see the point in throwing away a few hundred thousand pounds worth of tax payers money to achieve nothing. They are not dangerous. They don't need to be removed from the streets for our safety. They haven't hurt anyone. People get far less punishment than they guys will for hurting or killing someone in their car by doing things that are a danger to the general public. Work that one out...
they deserve mob justice.

Bring backs the stocks minimum and let people throw rotten fruit at them for a few weeks
 
Last edited:
He opined that this is not just the felling of a random tree, so a punishment greater than a fine is appropriate. Subsequently clarifying that his reasons for this not being just being the felling a random tree include the damage to a historic wall, does not appear to conflict with the earlier post.

I really can't see that it's worth arguing about.

Unless I'm mistaken, he only mentioned the wall after I pointed out he hadn't?
 
Is this a thing you have made up in your head?
couple of minutes on google https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AG-Ref-Colston-Four-judgment-280922.pdf
15. The judge dealt with this defence last in his route to verdict. The jury would onlyconsider it if they had rejected the defence case on other issues. The final question was:“Are you sure that convicting [the defendants] of criminaldamage would be a proportionate interference with their rightsto freedom of thought and conscience, and to freedom ofexpression?”If the answer were “yes” the verdict would be guilty, otherwise, not guilty. In effect,the requirement for a conviction to be proportionate was treated as an additional,separate ingredient of the offence which the prosecution had to prove. The strictanalysis was that the prosecution had to prove that the Convention did not provide a“lawful excuse” within the terms of the Criminal Damage Act.
 
Back
Top Bottom