Colston Four Cleared

[maltaseagull]

Verdicts from a jury do not set precedents.

If the prosecution think there has been a mistrial they can appeal the verdict.

Are you a politician?

You seem to selectively pick up parts of the comment to argue.

I am 100% sure you are correct about jury trials.

Do you not think other people may act in a similar manner and expect a similar acquittal ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Are you a politician?

You seem to selectively pick up parts of the comment to argue.

I am 100% sure you are correct about jury trials.

Do you not think other people may act in a similar manner and expect a similar acquittal ?

No, I am not a politician. However, before I retired I worked in the Criminal Justice System.

 

[maltaseagull]

May as well say it again, just to bang the point home.

Decisions made by a jury CAN'T set a precedent.

That isn't your opinion, it's your misunderstanding.

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

Using another verdict carries no weight at all. People can use the same defence but this wouldn't work elsewhere.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

There's loads of other examples that didn't open the proverbial floodgates, and no doubt many convictions result in other cases as well. Notable acquittals when the damage or conspiracy to damage wasn't denied;

2000 - 2 anti-nuclear protestors cleared of conspiracy to cause criminal damage despite breaking in with intent to damage HMS Vengeance.
2001 - Lord Melchett of Greenpeace and a load of activists were cleared of criminal damage despite admitting destroying a crop of GM maize.
2007 - 2 anti-war campaigners also clear of conspiracy to cause criminal damage to US B52 bombers after arguing they were to be used in war crimes.
2008 - 6 Greenpeace activists cleared of causing criminal damage to the Kingsnorth power station and successfully argued that the power station was contributing to climate change.
2019 - Roger Hallam cleared of causing criminal damage when he admitted spraying the walls of Kings College with 'divest from oil and gas' as the institution was investing in fossil fuels.

Unless you were specifically tearing down another statue of a slave trader in similar circumstances and context, not really sure you'd have much of a case for justification based on this outcome. Even then, it would be down to the jury to consider if makes a difference to their decision or not. So all this precedent waffle, is just that...

 

[Dorset Seagull]

no it isn't. If it was purely that - it wouldn't be a national story, no one would give a flying fig.

I was referring to the reactions on this thread

 

[London Irish]

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

This is where the jury system comes in tho, juries will convict bellends pulling down stuff but if it's a long overdue piece of good public policy, they won't

 

[Hugo Rune]

You misunderstood my post.

A guilty verdict and zero punishment would, in my opinion, have been a better result.

The precedent, as I said to another legal expert on here, would be that other people could tear down other statues and use this case as justification.

Are people that stupid? You're going to have to give examples of other statues (and we're going to need a mass murdering exploitative slave trader here rather than a slave owner) you think are at risk?

 

[Seaview Seagull]

They should have been found guilty because they were but then given a token fine, say 1p.

This now means that anyone can damage anything and justify it based on this case. Yes there were petitions to get rid of the statue but I believe there was also a vote that failed to win a majority. If things are changed just because some petition against it where does it end.

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. One jury decision on a case Hase no bearing on another case. Greatly to my concern I agree with Rees-Mogg on this one when he rubished other Tory criticism of the verdict by saying juries are the great bulwark of the law and democracy. This country has a proud history of seemingly perverse jury decisions made because the jurors felt the "legally right" verdict was in fact morally wrong.

 

[rogersix]

This judgement is off the plot, if you ask me.

Seriously, it makes no sense at all.

it makes no sense at all, to you. it's obviously the only option, as the judge alluded to

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

PotG, have you seriously got no sense of humour whatsover!? Sarcasm...pull the other one, made yourself a bigger plum than you did first time.

He doesn't always understand things properly. That's not a sin. But this should be obvious to him, by now, at his age, and a little circumspection would be wise. And contrition.

But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Giraffe]

Shocking outcome. Who decides what statue is offensive? Is anyone allowed to take offense to a statue and rip it down with no repercussion.

How about I am offended by Booby Moore's statue because I am anti drugs and he once used drugs. Is that okay and legal for me to rip his statue down now?

It's a very thin end of the wedge to allow people like this to get away with mindless vandallism.

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards. In time we will be judged the same way and our appalling record on what we have done to the planet, animals, Africa will mean none of us are safe from judgement.

 

[rogersix]

Talking to the wrong people I'm afraid

Regards
DF

yep, you need to seek out your echo chamber

 

[Guinness Boy]

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards. In time we will be judged the same way and our appalling record on what we have done to the planet, animals, Africa will mean none of us are safe from judgement.

Probably best we don't have statues of Boris and Trump then, just in case.

 

[Bry Nylon]

It's a long time ago since I studied law at university but I do recall that because we don't have a Bill of Rights or written constitution, English Law is based on precedent set by the decisions and reasoning / interpretation of the law by judges in the higher courts - and thereafter followed by judges in equal or lower courts. So whilst it is correct to say juries don't set precedent, it is undeniable that their decisions do have the potential to create persuasive precedent, potentially making the CPS reluctant to bring charges in similar instances. So to say the verdicts of juries don't / can't establish legal precedent or influence how the law is / isn't applied in future cases isn't wholly accurate.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I also have a massive issue with judging people of hundreds of year ago by our own standards. I.

Quite right.

My 4 year old daughter asked me about it when I was watching the news.

I explained what slavery was

She said "That sounds really bad".

I took your advice and said "Oh no. I wouldn't want to say slavery was bad as that would be a bit unfair on the chap judging him by today's standards"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It doesn't mean anything of the sort. One jury decision on a case Hase no bearing on another case. Greatly to my concern I agree with Rees-Mogg on this one when he rubished other Tory criticism of the verdict by saying juries are the great bulwark of the law and democracy. This country has a proud history of seemingly perverse jury decisions made because the jurors felt the "legally right" verdict was in fact morally wrong.

There was a case here in Kent 20 years ago when a lorry driver, who had never passed his test, and had multiple driving convictions, was given a ludicrously light sentence for turning without looking and killing a young lad. When the driver was released from prison he was attacked and given a good thumping by the father of the dead lad. Allegedly. Plenty of evidence. The jury found the father not guilty. It seemed perverse at the time, and yet it was 'legal'. The stumbling block here is sentencing guidelines. Politicians have pushed through guidelines to appease blood thirsty voters, so if someone if found guilty as charged it may not be possible to award a 1p fine (like you can do in libel cases) or a 1 hour custodial sentence.

Either way, I can't find any reason for getting agitated about the outcome in this case. It doesn't set a precedent for the simple reason that in law a verdict of not guilty in a case like this cannot set a precedent. They obviously 'did it' but were found not guilty. It is probably the cleverest verdict given the circumstances and the limits on wriggle room.

If someone feels outraged by this act of outrage they are of course free to open a private prosecution. Fill your boots

 

[rogersix]

That's the question, is criminal damage simply criminal damage in the eyes of the law. Slippery slope if criminal damage becomes excusable if a person believes it to be justified. If an act is criminal damage then it should remain criminal damage whether or not an individual or group believe the criminal damage is justified.

it's not the perpetrator's opinion that's the deciding factor, but that of the jury

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Quite right.

My 4 year old daughter asked me about it when I was watching the news.

I explained what slavery was

She said "That sounds really bad".

I took your advice and said "Oh no. I wouldn't want to say slavery was bad as that would be a bit unfair on the chap judging him by today's standards"

There are some left wingers who will forgive anything if it is against 'the opressive hegemony of the ruling class'.

Equally there are some right wingers who will forgive anything if it was done 'only' to black people more than a week ago.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1479090192845877248[/tweet]