There are times I really like our Jury system

It’s bluster; but it’s exactly what people want to hear, so it’s precisely what I’d expect of the crooks running the country.

 

Suella Braverman is a disgrace to the legal profession.

 

The secret barrister thread refers to one line of defence being..." had the people of Bristol known of the circumstances, they would have consented to what was done." This ties in with the fact that Bristol Council were custodians of the statue belong ing to the people of Bristol.
The learned Barrister opens up a can of worms with that for people like myself not bound by semantics an minutiae of the legal system.
As an example, if someone was daft enough to install a statue to the late Margaret Thatcher within the boundaries of Barnsley, given the hostile reaction it would provoke from a sizeable majority of people living in the area, and a group took similar action to remove it, arguing that it was causing distress and anguish amongst many ex miners and their families and many others, would/should a jury come to a similar decision?
Just hypothetical you understand but again, as per my assertion in an earlier post, would that not mean we are heading to verdict based on public opinion (if not mob rule)?
Again IMO, I believe they (the jury) should have been directed by the judge to find a guilty verdict (the action of removing the statues and dumping it in the dock obviously happened) should have been guilty of vandalism to comply with existing law but would have been no fine and no prison sentence either suspended or actual, followed by a pardon. That should have satisfied parties on both sides. Instead we have the spectre of yet more divisiveness.
I think one or two on here are confusing opinions like mine with a defence of Colston, condone slavery or condemnation of those who take action against it. Absolutely not true.
Also, arguing, insurrection against a corrupt Government, fraudulent elections, violently putting down peaceful protests, it is not a direct comparison. There is a difference between direct action (sometimes it IS the only way against current leaders that are violently suppressing the population and, themselves operating outside the rule of law) and direct action of the type we are discussing where there is no real time limiting factor to taking a lawful approach to removing an offending statue.

 

shes just a disgrace. My local MP and would struggle to point to us on a map. Horrible person with a horrible outlook on life.

 

I read this yesterday and was going to post a link myself, so I'm glad I checked first.

It demonstrates the complexity of the arguments under consideration, and why this can't simply be put down to a 'rogue jury' line in which they've somehow ignored all the facts of the case.

Like you, I'm a fan of legal Twitter (Secret Barrister and David Allen Green in particular). It's useful for me to follow as background info as I'm a magistrate, so have some limited involvement in the legal system. The legal framework in which we operate quite often throws up some odd constraints on the decisions we make. These 'explainers' on decisions that might look odd on the face of things are fascinating to read. In this case, regardless of what anyone thinks of the outcome, it gives a much clearer understanding as to why a not guilty verdict could have been reached, given the extremely high burden of proof that the prosecution had to establish.

The 'adding value' argument was a particularly ingenious line of defence.

 

It is now. Hasn't always been that way.

 

I may have mentioned this before; but I ‘got into’ legal Twitter during the Twittergate trial, and I literally fell into that just cos of the Donny connection.

When running my part time business I got into lots of discussions re copyright and related issues. I’m constantly fascinated by peoples ignorance of the law and particularly those who decide the law is often wrong when they simply disagree with it from a point of ignorance.

OTOH I’m annoyed when politicians push an agenda for political gain by scapegoating lawyers, judges etc. it’s one thing the media doing it, but politicians should be honest.

 

The explainer is very clear as to why the statue being removed and dumped in the dock isn't sufficient to prove the charge of criminal damage. SB states the requirements as being:

"For a charge of criminal damage therefore, the prosecution has to prove the following:

1. The Defendant damaged property;
2. The property belonged to another;
3. The Defendant intended to damage the property or was reckless as to whether it would be damaged; and
4. The Defendant did not have a lawful excuse for damaging the property."

There's then quite a lot of detail as to why it can be argued that these haven't necessarily been met.

I'm not sure how you can have read the article and then reached the overly simplistic conclusion you've stated, which pretty much ignores the content of it.

 

The Secret Barrister's article is an interesting take on the case. It certainly raises issues which might explain how the jury reached their verdict. However the bit that set some alarm bells ringing for me was the statement:

Put even more simply, if the jury were satisfied that the prosecution had made them sure of guilt, they would also need to be sure that a criminal conviction for criminal damage would be proportionate.

Taken at face value, that statement seems to imply that the jury might be able to exercise some supervisory jurisdiction over whether the prosecution case should even have been brought. He appears to cite in support of that the Zeigler case which related to obstruction charges brought against protesters outside the Excel Centre in London. Looking at the first instance decision of the District Judge in that case, he seems to have found that the prosecution failed to rebut the lawful excuse(s) advanced on behalf of the defendants. So in effect, he was not satisfied of their guilt. The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge's decision, overturning the Divisional Court's decision to quash it.

In the Bristol case I suspect that the proportionality test would have applied at the stage where the defendants' explanations and motivations were being considered - in other words while the jury were still considering whether they were sure of guilt. I don't think it would have been open to them to find that they were sure of guilt but then refuse to convict on the grounds of proportionality. The irony is of course that we will never know whether they did follow that line of reasoning. Despite the fact that the more serious cases are usually sent to the Crown Court, juries are not required to give reasons for their decisions whereas District Judges and magistrates in the lower court are!

 

I don't believe that the Judge would have done anything like you suggest had the jury returned a guilty verdict. He would have thrown the book at them. I believe that this may have been in the minds of the jury, who decided to take the matter out of his hands by returning a not guilty verdict.

 

Indeed, one of the big problems with the push for stronger sentences is that it makes a jury less likely to convict if they feel that the punishment is greater than the crime. This is particularly the case where the death penalty is in place and when a jury is faced with a decision that could end the life of the defendant will find them not-guilty in the face of evidence that isn't 100% solid. The same could be said for the proposed 10 year sentence for damaging a statue - a jury would be less likely to convict than if the sentence was more proportionate.

 

Yet so many criticise the Extinction Rebellion protesters for doing exactly that.

 

m

She’s great. I don’t think I had realised that regardless of the evidence a jury can find a client not guilty for pretty much any reason

 

Several commenters have gone on to surmise that the increasing powers being sought by our odious overlords will mean that juries might start doing this more frequently.

It's exactly why we should have trial by jury IMHO, to defend us from a government seeking to quell any dissent with unjust laws.

 

Not without danger though Donny, if juries start picking and choosing which laws they will apply? It also risks 'postcode justice'?

 

I think you’re bang on with this and I see a massive DANGER sign in front of me.
I learnt yesterday that a group of extinction rebellion protesters who damaged an oil company hq by throwing fake oil at the frontage we’re found not guilty by the jury despite the judge saying that the protesters had NO defence in law. To me, that’s the same as saying they’re guilty.
How long will this fascist government put up with that? What if it happens again in case much more serious than criminal damage? How much of an excuse do they need to ‘suspend’ trial by jury? And more worryingly, what would they replace it with? I bet they can’t wait.