Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

[Dolph]

I believe those responses are rhetorical, unless you think it's acceptable for the law to only apply to certain people and not others, based on political views?

Amiga does think that, he's on record as such. He genuinely believes that the same actions in the same context should be treated differently based on whether he agrees with the motivation of the actioner or not.

 

[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.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Did it set a precedent that binds further rulings? No.

How could you possibly know that at this point? Surely the next keyboard warrior who decides to progress on to commit criminal damage can refer back to this case?

This verdict will simply embolden and encourage those who think it acceptable to smash what they don't agree with. It's mob rule.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Amiga does think that, he's on record as such. He genuinely believes that the same actions in the same context should be treated differently based on whether he agrees with the motivation of the actioner or not.

No, not on whether I agree with the motivation or not - I made that quite clear - please read my post again.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

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

Maybe they'll start to think seriously about whether their actions (or inaction) re climate change may or may not encourage this type of behaviour.

 

[explicit4u]

How could you possibly know that at this point? Surely the next keyboard warrior who decides to progress on to commit criminal damage can refer back to this case?

I think it's more likely to affect jurors rather than criminals. As the judge said, they had no defense in law, so i'm not sure what other cases can refer to exactly. The only precedent I can see is other juries realising they can do what these lot did.

Based purely on watching fictitious courts on TV, precedent is usually set when you provide a new interpretation of a law.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

How could you possibly know that at this point? Surely the next keyboard warrior who decides to progress on to commit criminal damage can refer back to this case?

This verdict will simply embolden and encourage those who think it acceptable to smash what they don't agree with. It's mob rule.

Is not the law (or the repudiation of certain interpretations of it) there to encourage certain behaviours though? I think the jury knew very well what result of their verdict might be.

Let's be clear, the law has not changed, although we are probably now in territory where future jurors feel unsafe in rigidly applying it in areas where it isn't in the public interest to do so.*

*This aligns with my view that the law should (and usually does) protect society (i.e. everyone suffering from climate change), not individuals ( corporation).

 

[Nasher]

Maybe they'll start to think seriously about whether their actions (or inaction) re climate change may or may not encourage this type of behaviour.

I don't think the climate mentalists thought about that. Shell are investing loads in renewables.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I don't think the climate mentalists thought about that. Shell are investing loads in renewables.

Maybe it might encourage them to invest more?

Or more than likely publicise it a bot more.

Or a bit of both?

 

[Dolph]

No, not on whether I agree with the motivation or not - I made that quite clear - please read my post again.

So your view is essentially a populist one?

Would you support the real world examples of jury nullification I referenced earlier?

 

[Hagar]

The fact is that if you go around smashing things up like windows or spray painting stonework there will be a significant carbon equivalence in manufacturing and replacing said glassware and scrubbing the paint of the wall, vehicle movements, personnel and chemicals.

Blocking highways and causing traffic holdups similarly, quite apart from all the journeys taken unnecessarily by the "rebels" some from as far away as the states.

It is less extinction rebellion as exhibitionist rebellion IMO.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So your view is essentially a populist one?

A bit of a simplification, but ok.

Would you support the real world examples of jury nullification I referenced earlier?

The examples area bit extreme but it's not a case of supporting the outcomes themselves (fortunately, there are other checks and balances in place that mean your example instances wouldn't happen now anyway), it's more of a case of supporting juries making the decision to not apply a strict interpretation of the law when it's not in the public interest.

In this instance, the jury decided that managing climate change was more in the public interest than protecting private property (and it's irrelevant whether I think they were correct or not).

 

[nightwish]

How could you possibly know that at this point? Surely the next keyboard warrior who decides to progress on to commit criminal damage can refer back to this case?

This verdict will simply embolden and encourage those who think it acceptable to smash what they don't agree with. It's mob rule.

No, that's not how it works. No it isn't. Stow the drama. The outrage here is closer to mob rule than what will follow from the jury's decision in this case.

https://guides.lib.strath.ac.uk/c.php?g=653815&p=4590413

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

 

[Deleted member 66701]

No, that's not how it works. No it isn't. Stow the drama. The outrage here is closer to mob rule than what will follow from the jury's decision in this case.

https://guides.lib.strath.ac.uk/c.php?g=653815&p=4590413

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

Agreed - I don't see how people can think this this will lead to a significant escalation and use of similar tactics? The law hasn't changed - whoever employs similar tactics has no guarantee that they will "get away with it" as per this case. At most the tactics will continue at a comparable level.

 

[dowie]

I'd hope that the in-house legal teams at these banks start looking at pursuing these individuals for damages, some of them are clearly middle-class protestor types so ought to have some assets to target. If there is less of a deterrent in law then making them pay some other way might be an idea even if it isn't something they'd usually bother with due to likely costing as much as or more to pursue than they'll get back.

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.

Yup, though if this starts becoming popular it will make a farce out of jury trials (which, frankly, can already be rather farcical in complex cases).

It used to be an issue in the US in the south with racist juries letting people charged with race related crimes off the hook. If it becomes popular here in the current climate along with the growing popularity of woke nonsense then we could see more of this - not just climate demonstrators but it might be seen as "anti-racist" to let someone off because they're black etc...

 

[Angilion]

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.

Bit further back than that - that case was in 1670. It's not exactly the basis of the power of jury nullification, which existed before then in England. It's what established it formally as a power above the law when the highest legal authority declared it so. Which is a very big deal. It's also a bit strange - since the whole point of the principle of jury nullification is that juries are above the law, how can the legal system be involved at all?

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.

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.

But can you think of another example in which people committed criminal damage purely for ideological reasons and the jury nullified the law for them? You give examples of people breaking the law for medical/humanitarian reasons and doing no harm while doing so, which is a different thing. Where is the line to be drawn? What if a jury decided that a person who beat someone up wasn't guilty of assault because the person they beat up worked for Shell? Or was a muslim? A jew? A christian? An atheist? A police officer? "white"? "black"?

 

[Caracus2k]

No - one is violence against the person and one is damage to property - not even on the same page re. severity.

One is outright criminality and the other is members of the public exercising their rights to robustly deal with the criminal behaviour of others.

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.

Given the likely size of the carbon footprint of you and your family I not sure that would be the first word to come to mind when talking about your position on 'climate change'

I rate it higher than my both my Lexus LS400 and 430

We were supposed to be snowboarding in Lindvallen, Sweden this week

On the flip side, I now have two holiday refunds sitting in the account so Whistler, Canada for next Easter booked!

Having just come back from a christmas holiday in Ruka, Finland

Does being a 'bit' of an anarchist mean you tacitly approve of mass fossil fuel extraction by companies by virtue of your rather discretionary (and fossil fuel intensive) actions whilst talking **** about the same companies online by implying they had it coming in a rather risible attempt to try and claim some sort of superior moral code?


Go put anything like XR's demands into practice and see how popular they are will the public...

 

[Dirk Diggler]

*This aligns with my view that the law should (and usually does) protect society (i.e. everyone suffering from climate change), not individuals ( corporation).

The company contributing to climate change was not on trial, it was individuals accused of criminal damage, of which the judge had advised there was no defense in law, who were on trial. The actions and environmental outcomes of a company don't get challenged with bricks, bottles and tins of spray paint. They get challenged politically, that's why we have a Parliament.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

The company contributing to climate change was not on trial, it was individuals accused of criminal damage, of which the judge had advised there was no defense in law, who were on trial. The actions and environmental outcomes of a company don't get challenged with bricks, bottles and tins of spray paint. They get challenged politically, that's why we have a Parliament.

If you want the law to be applied black and white with no context then why would we need jurors at all?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

If you want the law to be applied black and white with no context then why would we need jurors at all?

I've already stated earlier in the thread that I don't think we do, at least not in its present form.