The Extinction Rebellion case highlights that a jury can simply disregard the law entirely. The judge in that case event directed the jury that they had not heard a valid legal defence, only for the jury to ignore the judge as well.
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
What has that got to do with this case?
You've made the assumption that the jury was convinced by a "well considered technical legal argument". That's not necessarily the case, tho?
Unless you can offer proof that is how the jury reached their verdict?
Did the judge rule that no valid legal defence had been provided in this case? If the answer is no then the assumption must be there was a valid legal defence provided.
Edit: which then swings us back round to the question what the Extinction Rebellion case has got to do with this case?
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
He said: "They had a number of defences but, broadly, they had a lawful excuse as to why they committed the act that they did.
"That excuse included their right to free speech, their right to conscience and that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with those grounds.
"And that they were preventing a crime.
"It was a criminal offence to keep that statue up because it was so offensive."
"This isn't a case that creates a legal precedent.
"It turns very much on its own facts and we stressed that throughout the course of the trial.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,667
Isn't it the job of a jury to decide on guilt, not on whether or not somebody should be punished for that guilt ?
It seems in this case & the extinction case, the jury are deciding punishment (or absence of it) as opposed to guilt which in both cases was clear cut
Otherwise it sets a precedence that it's okay to destroy property that somebody may take offence at
It seems in this case & the extinction case, the jury are deciding punishment (or absence of it) as opposed to guilt which in both cases was clear cut
Otherwise it sets a precedence that it's okay to destroy property that somebody may take offence at
I don't think that's a valid assumption. The jury doesn't have to reach a verdict based on law, as we've seen.
In fact various posters above has argued that it is a good thing that a jury can disregard the law. So...
That's what I thought initially and then I looked in more detail and in this case there was a legal defence put forward.
That's also what I think, but it appears we are entering an era when juries now make moral judgements on who should be immune to prosecution, based on their own morality.
I'm not sure I like this. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't like this
So:
- We have an unrelated case and an unrelated jury.
- We have no indication that a Judge directed the Jury that no legal defence was put forward in this case.
- We have three actual legal defences put forward in this case.
I am reminded of the saying about it being better to to remain quiet that have others confirm their negative opinions of you.
In the circumstances you outline you would have a solid defence against any murder charge (or any other criminal charge) because you would be acting firmly within the law...
My example makes clear I was not in any danger myself. How could self-defence be applied?
Because the law allows you to use force to defend others, as above. Your ignorance of the law doesn't change it.
Again I really think you should shut up if you don't know what you are on about.
The judge isn't there to give the jury 'options' the judge is there to rule on matters of law and to direct the jury as to what the law says. The jury's role is to follow the law and determine whether they think the defendants were guilty or not on each individual charge to the criminal burden of proof.
Again your ignorance shows through..the jury is not there to determine whether an act is criminal or not. Destroying the statue in the way it was in this case is explicitly a criminal act. The juries job was to asses whether the prosecution had proven that each defendant was guilty of the illegal act. It would be with the judges purview to direct the jury as to whether an act in and of itself was illegal in the abstract sense.
Asinine comparison... the laws against causing criminal damage universally apply to everyone and there isn't any serious attempt to have the Criminal Damage act of 1971 amended or removed.
Not random... juries have issues of self selection as I have previously outlined along with the issues that most juries seem to be unable to understand what they are being asked to do.
And the difference there was that Rittenhouse's defence was firmly routed in the law of self defence not an appeal to disregard the law like in this case
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Wrong thread.
Last edited:
Before and during the case a number of legal experts put forward their opinion that there was no defence in law against the criminal damage case.
One such example
The Colston statue destroyers have no defence in law but they will never be convicted - BarristerBlogger
"The Colston statue destroyers have no defence in law but they will never be convicted."
As well as criminal damage there is also the charge of defacing a listed building..
During the trial the defence team put forward legal defences.
Until a legal opinion has been tested in court you can't cherry pick which opinion is right. No opinion is right until a court has ruled on it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,140
- Location
- Woking
Ironically, you don't have PMs enabled.
I don't even think @hurfdurf knows what the point he's making half the time. It's apparently he does like to feel superior, tho.
Is it just me or did he not repeatedly say we have a duty to break unjust laws. Given the law in question here is the law in criminal damage, either he has no point at all or he was saying that the law on criminal damage is unjust. But no, he tries to argue both ways. Both that breaking the law was just, and that the law itself is not unjust.
So it must be my "lack of intelligence" that fails to comprehend the brilliance of his argument, as always. Nice to see some of his onlyfans customers coming here to blow smoke up his ass, too. Who said customer loyalty is dead?
You seem to be wilfully ignorant of the fact that this is a crime with no victim (not victimless as it's normally used) and that this was the final blow in a long battle against this slaver. Furthermore, the courts completely agree!
And yes, it is we should be defeating unjust laws. I'm pretty sure they exist to serve a purpose and if that purpose is compromised, they should be changed.
I think we need to address some fundamental aspects of trial by jury. It appears that whilst there are some reasoned posts here those describe the jury’s role as upholding the law or applying the law.
Summary Trial- there are magistrates or a district judge. These people are both tribunal of fact and law (lay mags are assisted by a legal advisor).
Trial on indictment (some offences allow an accused to choose to be tried by a jury rather than magistrates) - you have a circuit judge (sometimes a recorder who is a part time circuit judge, often an experienced barrister of 12 years or more PQE) and a jury.
The judge is your tribunal of law. He decides the legal issues, for example : applications to adduce expert evidence, applications to adduce bad character, applications to exclude evidence. The judge will often seek assistance from the Bar to come up with agreed facts and will seek input with proposed directions to the jury. A jury direction will be the judge telling the jury what the law is. The judge will explain what various ingredients of the statue or defence means.
The jury will hear all of the evidence. They will not hear legal arguments. Though they will often be asked to take a break when a matter of law has arisen, but it is highly unlikely a jury will understand what the point that has arisen is about. A judge will often mention when they return what was happening, though perhaps not the ins and outs.
after hearing all of the evidence (witnesses, the officer in the case, the defendant, read statements etc) the barristers make their closing submissions. Often after discussion of directions to the jury.
The judge sums up and gives directions to the jury. The burden of proof, ingredients of offence and so on.
The jury are often given directions as hand outs. They can pass notes if they need any explanations.
doubtless directions were given regarding each element of the offence and defence.
either prosecution didn’t come up to proof (so persuade the jury such that they were sure of the defendants guilt) or they felt the defence was made out.
there is no prospect of a jury decision becoming precedent. A jury will not reveal its deliberations and so we will never know how they came to their decision.
unless the directions are appealable and appealed this case creates no precedent and no change in the law on criminal damage.
Often when running jury trials there is hope of sympathy acquittals where a jury won’t feel comfortable convicting. Some get publicised such as the shell case, it is a matter for the crown to appeal and not for the public to decide trials by jury are rubbish. It is accepted widely amongst practitioners that trial by jury is more often than not the best way to go and to ensure a fair crack of the whip.
Hope this helps as there’s conflation of outrage at BLM and doing what’s “right” and juries deciding law.
outrage at BLM and culture wars is wholly separate from a standard jury trial.
Summary Trial- there are magistrates or a district judge. These people are both tribunal of fact and law (lay mags are assisted by a legal advisor).
Trial on indictment (some offences allow an accused to choose to be tried by a jury rather than magistrates) - you have a circuit judge (sometimes a recorder who is a part time circuit judge, often an experienced barrister of 12 years or more PQE) and a jury.
The judge is your tribunal of law. He decides the legal issues, for example : applications to adduce expert evidence, applications to adduce bad character, applications to exclude evidence. The judge will often seek assistance from the Bar to come up with agreed facts and will seek input with proposed directions to the jury. A jury direction will be the judge telling the jury what the law is. The judge will explain what various ingredients of the statue or defence means.
The jury will hear all of the evidence. They will not hear legal arguments. Though they will often be asked to take a break when a matter of law has arisen, but it is highly unlikely a jury will understand what the point that has arisen is about. A judge will often mention when they return what was happening, though perhaps not the ins and outs.
after hearing all of the evidence (witnesses, the officer in the case, the defendant, read statements etc) the barristers make their closing submissions. Often after discussion of directions to the jury.
The judge sums up and gives directions to the jury. The burden of proof, ingredients of offence and so on.
The jury are often given directions as hand outs. They can pass notes if they need any explanations.
doubtless directions were given regarding each element of the offence and defence.
either prosecution didn’t come up to proof (so persuade the jury such that they were sure of the defendants guilt) or they felt the defence was made out.
there is no prospect of a jury decision becoming precedent. A jury will not reveal its deliberations and so we will never know how they came to their decision.
unless the directions are appealable and appealed this case creates no precedent and no change in the law on criminal damage.
Often when running jury trials there is hope of sympathy acquittals where a jury won’t feel comfortable convicting. Some get publicised such as the shell case, it is a matter for the crown to appeal and not for the public to decide trials by jury are rubbish. It is accepted widely amongst practitioners that trial by jury is more often than not the best way to go and to ensure a fair crack of the whip.
Hope this helps as there’s conflation of outrage at BLM and doing what’s “right” and juries deciding law.
outrage at BLM and culture wars is wholly separate from a standard jury trial.
I think it might be you: I can start a conversation with others, but with you I can't.
Or perhaps it's both of us?
I think its plain that we aren't dealing with an unjust law in this instance. Even hurf acknowledged that this law is just, and that you shouldn't be able to go around destroying things, especially things he likes.
So we are left in the rather precarious position that a just law can be nullified according to the whims of a specific jury on any given day.
As for no victim, it was a listed building and despite the false narrative, it's destruction or removal was not overwhelmingly supported.
The statue was not removed by any democratic means. Let's not forget that. It was removed by an angry mob.
Some people here think that gives rise to celebration.
law is not nullified by a jury, they don’t have that power. They decide upon guilt after trying the evidence.
It is the nature of the beast. Juries are unpredictable and one can get surprise acquittals as a result.
There was chat of Diplock trials coming back during pandemic. Widely unpopular with practitioners. Happily they haven’t been brought back yet but there’s a lot of people and practitioners out there who share many views here and say get rid of juries and have a system more like an appeal from the Mags to the crown court.
You still haven't justified why you're ignoring the fact a legal defence was put forward and seemingly not rejected as valid.