Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

abbviper

abbviper

abbviper

Associate
Joined
31 Aug 2004
Posts
509
Location
Midlands
In the news today I see six Extinction Rebellion protesters were cleared of causing criminal damage, despite the jury being told by the judge there was no defence in law for their actions.

Activists targeted Shell's London HQ, claiming the oil firm was directly contributing to climate change.

I appreciate that a jury does not have to give reasons and a judge cannot direct a jury to convict, however the direction of the judge was clear - if they committed the act they must be guilty.

It appears the jury has gone off on a frolic of its own and behaved as activists first and jurors second. This is not a case where this jury can be seen as providing a valuable safeguard against unfair and unjust laws or prosecutions.

This jury has significantly undermined confidence in trial by jury IMO. The victim in this case has also been let down by the jury.





https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979.amp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979.amp
 
Unfortunately this’ll give them reason to believe they can keep doing it and getting away with it. Strap in for more ******** from this lot.
 
I’ve only read the link but is this perhaps just really shoddy reporting?

Six Extinction Rebellion protesters have been cleared of causing criminal damage, despite a jury being told by the judge there was no defence in law for their actions.

....

Judge Gregory Perrins said that even if their actions were "morally justified", that did not provide a lawful excuse.
Click to expand...
That’s not the same thing as the headline at all :confused: :rolleyes:

edit: oh, I see, it gets expanded on here:

With the exception of Mr Saunders - who claimed he honestly believed Shell's employees and shareholders would have consented to the damage he caused - the judge had told the jury: "They don't have any defence in law for the charges they face."
Click to expand...

It’s splitting hairs slightly, but I think this still permits the Jury to decide whether the defendants actually caused the damage or not (the next question being whether there is any defence), but the judge may have directed the jury on the facts anyway.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I’ve only read the link but is this perhaps just really shoddy reporting?


That’s not the same thing as the headline at all :confused: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The headline I see on that story is "Jury acquits protestors despite judge's direction", which is what happened. The judge's directions to the jury included the statement that the defendents had no defence in law for their actions. That's as explicit as a judge is allowed to be. It's a simple, clear statement that the defendents are guilty. Judges in the UK aren't allowed to order a jury to return a guilty verdict.

So the jury, very clearly, very explicitly and very deliberately, with full knowledge of what they were doing, declared the law to be wrong and that criminal damage is fine as long as the target is one that the jury decides deserved it. A jury has the power to do that, although it's not used often.
 
Angilion said:
So the jury, very clearly, very explicitly and very deliberately, with full knowledge of what they were doing, declared the law to be wrong and that criminal damage is fine as long as the target is one that the jury decides deserved it. A jury has the power to do that, although it's not used often.
Click to expand...

It's one of the most powerful and best things a Jury can and are allowed to do, and from memory something that has in the past passed quite serious messages along to the government of the day about the public's opinion of certain laws or the way the system deals with things.
From memory part of the reason it tends not to happen often is that the prosecution tends to try and stop people who are aware of this ability from being chosen for the jury.

A couple of hundred years ago there was a case where from memory a jury was imprisoned because they refused to pass the sentence the judge wanted, and continued to refuse to do so which is the basis of it.

Whenever I see someone post like the op about how a jury doing something and claiming the jury has undermined their confidence by say finding someone guilty/not guilty I always tend to wonder who that person would think if the Jury had done the same thing but in a way they agreed with.


Cooler running said:
The court of public opinion has spoken.

In all seriousness this is most troubling.
Click to expand...
There is a reason it's a jury of "our peers" and not just judges/politicians or a computer spreadsheet, as it means that it's normal people making the decision of guilt rather than blindly following the law as written when they feel it is wrong in that instance. Think of the saying aboug "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", or that it is almost impossible to get a conviction for killing someone who has broken into your property almost regardless of the level of force you have used (you practically have to torture the person to death, or hunt them down in the street).

The magistrates or Judges also have a similar ability with an "absolute discharge" IIRC (I might have the wrong term), where they acknowledge that the defendant broke the law as written but feel that the circumstances were such that blindly following the law would have broken the spirit of it and so no punishment is suitable, possibly the best example of that would be say someone speeding to get an injured person to a hospital* or (and this is a rough example I read from an actual magistrate), back before mobile phones a husband and wife went camping well away from the nearest residence, both had drinks, the husband had a heart attack later that night and the wife, being miles from anywhere and no phones drove her husband to the nearest hospital. The law as written gives no defence to drink driving (if you're over the limit that's it), but the court considered that there had been no intent to drive when they drank, that it was a literal matter of life and death and that the wife was never likely to do it again (they also concluded that whilst the wife could have stopped sooner and called an ambulance, it wasn't reasonable to expect someone to do so under the circumstances).


*Or the tales about police pulling over speeding motorists and taking the occupants to the hospital when it turns out the passenger is giving birth, rather than giving them a speeding ticket as the law would normally suggest.
 
A jury should be made up of professional people, trained to do the job. Asking Karen from Kent to pass judgement on a crime she followed live on Twitter and subsequently formed her opinion literally as the crime was being committed, is frankly ridiculous.
 
Dirk Diggler said:
A jury should be made up of professional people, trained to do the job. Asking Karen from Kent to pass judgement on a crime she followed live on Twitter and subsequently formed her opinion literally as the crime was being committed, is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It isnt just Karen's, a jury is a sample of all society.
 
12 people from all walks of life, following reviewing the oath they took when they were sworn in, unanimously (it was unanimous wasn't it?) agreed that the defendants were not guilty. That is something they are entitled to do, and it sounds like they took their responsibility seriously. Whether you agree or not isn't the point. The point is that they did the job they were there to do. The system requires checks and balances to avoid judges (or kings, lords, or politicians) from just doing whatever they like. The law can change, and this is one of the things that can change it.
 
Last edited:
nightwish said:
12 people from all walks of life, following reviewing the oath they took when they were sworn in, unanimously (it was unanimous wasn't it?) agreed that the defendants were not guilty. That is something they are entitled to do, and it sounds like they took their responsibility seriously. Whether you agree or not isn't the point. The point is that they did the job they were there to do. The system requires checks and balances to avoid judges (or kings, lords, or politicians) from just doing whatever they like. The law can change, and this is one of the things that can change it.
Click to expand...

Doing a job isn't the same as doing a job well.
 
Will this set a precedent for subsequent acts of violence perpetrated by protesters in the future?

Can future rioters get away with citing this verdict to prevent their convictions? It seems strange to me that someone can break the law and have no repercussions because the jury thought they were 'morally' right. I always though morality had no place in the law courts. If I decide to assault someone who assaulted me or a family member I would assume that I would be convicted of assault, no matter what my motive was.

I can understand why an abused wife who has suffered for 20 or 30 years can be declared not guilty of murder, but protesters deliberately damaging property is a completely different matter. If that is allowed, then surely I could legitimately go and destroy the property of any company who I felt was against my own particular moral code.
 
I think it's actually quite good - it's how rebellions start. It can be an important check and balance to unjust laws and actions being acceptable.

An extreme example, but say a law was passed to make blonde hair illegal. Would you expect a jury to convict unquestionably?
 
Lol, this is like when your racist uncle gains self awareness that not everyone is a racist anymore.

OCUK hive mind being challenged, and therefore blaming the entire basis of the legal system :cry:

Good thread, will read again.
 
gailjon said:
If that is allowed, then surely I could legitimately go and destroy the property of any company who I felt was against my own particular moral code.
Click to expand...

It would really depend if that moral code is shared with a significant section of the populace. In regards to fighting climate change, that would appear to be the case.

But I am a bit of an anarchist.
 
Angilion said:
The headline I see on that story is "Jury acquits protestors despite judge's direction", which is what happened. The judge's directions to the jury included the statement that the defendents had no defence in law for their actions. That's as explicit as a judge is allowed to be. It's a simple, clear statement that the defendents are guilty. Judges in the UK aren't allowed to order a jury to return a guilty verdict.

So the jury, very clearly, very explicitly and very deliberately, with full knowledge of what they were doing, declared the law to be wrong and that criminal damage is fine as long as the target is one that the jury decides deserved it. A jury has the power to do that, although it's not used often.
Click to expand...

The part I highlighted in bold is the judge effectively saying: “a moral justification does not equate to a legal defence”. This is not saying that there is no defences (or no basis in law for a defence). Re-read it and you’ll see what I mean.

Might just a be a very poorly written article and in actuality the judge made a separate direction, but if my original highlight in bold actually was extent of what the judge said, then the article is nonsense.

edit: oh, I see, it gets expanded on here:

With the exception of Mr Saunders - who claimed he honestly believed Shell's employees and shareholders would have consented to the damage he caused - the judge had told the jury: "They don't have any defence in law for the charges they face."
Click to expand...

It’s splitting hairs slightly, but I think this still permits the Jury to decide whether the defendants actually caused the damage or not (the next question being whether there is any defence), but the judge may have directed the jury on the facts anyway.
 
Last edited:
Dirk Diggler said:
A jury should be made up of professional people, trained to do the job. Asking Karen from Kent to pass judgement on a crime she followed live on Twitter and subsequently formed her opinion literally as the crime was being committed, is frankly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No.

Besides, jury members can be challenged if the prosecution or defense seem them unsuitable - which would be the case if the the above happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom