Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

[abbviper]

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

 

[abbviper]

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.

Good post. That is how I read it.

Quite worryingly, where a jury can decide an act is fine as long as the target is one that the jury decides deserved it could apply to any offence and not just damage to property. What next, a jury finding activists not guilty for assault where no defence available? What would the verdict be if glass had smashed and injured Shell staff?

The odd thing with criminal damage is that this will now encourage activists to damage more than £5k of property so they can get a jury trial.

Had this been less than 5k it would have been triable only summary with no option of trial by jury.

If indeed no lawful excuse in the Criminal Damage Act was applicable, they would have been convicted by the Magistrates and probably just given a lighter sentence if they agreed with the cause.

If the Magistrates had not convicted, they would have been required to give reasons for their decision, these no doubt would have been subject of an appeal to the High Court and overturned.

 

[abbviper]

I’ve edited my response to @Angilion to make this same point:

It’s splitting hairs slightly, but a direction of no defence at law would still permits the Jury to decide whether the defendants actually caused the damage or not (the next question being whether there is any defence in law), but the judge may have directed the jury on the facts anyway.

For example, if you claim I physically assaulted you by hitting you, I can claim “no I didn’t touch you” (a question of fact) or I can say that “any harm caused was using reasonable force” (the latter being the legal defence).

Judges often decide the facts for a jury anyway and probably did so here.

I agree with this, if the jury acquitted on the basis that the defendants didn’t commit the act or have the requisite intent then fair enough. However, from reading the article I don’t think that was the case here.

The jury effectively had 3 questions from the Criminal Damage Act.

Firstly, did the defendant destroy or damage any property belonging to another.
Secondly, was the defendant intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.
Finally, was there a lawful excuse.

On my reading it appears the defendants were not arguing they did not do the damage without the required intent.

The Act sets out lawful excuses and the way the judge directed suggests this was the issue in dispute.

The issue was to determine whether they had a lawful excuse, the judge said that on the facts he/she heard there was effectively no basis in law to find a lawful excuse on the facts put forward - and directed on this quite strongly.

If appears that the jury has effectively held there was a lawful excuse. On what basis I don’t know, presumably the jury agreed that it is ok to damage property for a cause you believe in - that is what I object to if that was the case.

If you get repeat cases like this, you can see the govt using this as a basis to scrap trial by jury - which I do not want especially for reasonable force cases.

I appreciate what you say on assault but I think that is a different type of analogy.

This would be like admitting I hit you, admitted that I intended to hit you and arguing that I was doing it in self defence because you are causing too much pollution.

A judge then rightfully directing that on the facts this excuse can’t amount to a legal defence in law, but the jury disregarding it and finding me not guilty. You would probably be rightly miffed at such a result.

 

[abbviper]

good for the jury.

As a former juror who along with the 11 others ruled according to the law in a case, believing that the penalty would be a slap on the wrist at most, and then found that the defendant was a week away from discharging a totally unrelated suspended sentence, sending him to jail for two years, I applaud a jury that rules on morals not laws. I wish I had.

And for those who think that the ER demonstrators should be beaten up, I'm shocked at how self-centered you are. Shocked but not surprised. Humans are like wasps; as a species it is selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, short-sighted, and unnecessary. Thanos should have made a special exception for humans and annihilated all of them.

You do realise that it is not mandatory for a court to activate a suspended sentence for the commission of a further offence don’t you?

In fact, the fact that a sentence sentence is almost completed would be a relevant factor in deciding whether or not to activate it.

 

[abbviper]

The system in this case. It should not be possible for a jury to clear people of acknowledged actions without a defence in law. I'd feel the same about any trial on any subject with the same scenario.

Completely agree. There will be some big businesses/individuals now worried that their property is no longer safe in the UK.

 

[abbviper]

People support terrorism, one look at the posters name..... no surprise there.

Are you referring to me?