The judge would have done that - the duty of the jury is to deliver a verdict. The judge gives direction as to the relevant law and summarises the evidence. Have you read the summing up given to this jury such as to enable you to make your comment?
The judge would have done that - the duty of the jury is to deliver a verdict. The judge gives direction as to the relevant law and summarises the evidence. Have you read the summing up given to this jury such as to enable you to make your comment?
Please don't post things that might be legally problematic for us, see host post - Thanks! Louise
Don't need to. If he had done his job properly, they would have been convicted. Their only defence would have been mistaken identity and they admitted responsibility.
From what I read, he did so in great detail. It's even possible he knows more about English Law than you do.
Maybe so but his directions should have been about common sense. Please don't post things that might be legally problematic for us. Thanks! L Epiphanies Host
As posted with hidden text on KarlLB's Post - I think on balance I'm not keen on people posting satire sites in sensitive threads especially not when it can be taken as a dig at another poster - so please leave that out on this thread.
And can people be mindful of Commandment 7 about not posting illegal or libellous stuff? Please remember to respect what the jury found in this case.
Edited to add that admins have checked with and we're redacting a bit to be on the safe side including tweaking host posts.
The "should" in your sentence has nothing to do with it. The directions are as to the law, and commonly will include a comment to the effect that in evaluating the evidence, the jurors should use their own common sense.
A judge can never, ever, direct a jury to convict, save where an accused has pleaded not guilty, been placed in charge of the jury, and then changes the plea to guilty.
As posted with hidden text on KarlLB's Post - I think on balance I'm not keen on people posting satire sites in sensitive threads especially not when it can be taken as a dig at another poster - so please leave that out on this thread.
And can people be mindful of Commandment 7 about not posting illegal or libellous stuff? Please remember to respect what the jury found in this case. [Host post redacted per admin instruction after Admin check]
Many Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
I apologise if I have offended. I'm sorry about that.
From the point of view of someone who believes in the rule of law, the ideal result would have been a conviction and a conditional discaharge of the defendants, or a fine. The government, of course, having no common sense, would have demanded a review on the ground that the sentence was too lenient.
But part of our rule of law is jury trial, it is supposed to be able to do this - in other words it’s a feature not a bug.
Yeah, and the way it can happen is such that you wouldn't undertake an act in the expectation of being found not-guilty so there is no likelihood of encouraging acts that would not otherwise have taken place.
And of course, while an accused found guilty may be able to find some ground to appeal, it's impossible in my State at least for the prosecution to appeal against a jury verdict of acquittal.
But part of our rule of law is jury trial, it is supposed to be able to do this - in other words it’s a feature not a bug.
Exactly. There are a lot of other reasons why jury trial is important but one which happens just occasionally is that it might just inhibit - as it has done here - the state from punishing people when a significant part of the public thinks they shouldn't be.
@Eirenist wrote: From the point of view of someone who believes in the rule of law, the ideal result would have been a conviction and a conditional discharge of the defendants, or a fine. The government, of course, having no common sense, would have demanded a review on the ground that the sentence was too lenient.
That doesn't work. The jury has no say in sentencing. Even if they make a recommendation, there's no obligation on the judge to take any notice. So if the jury thinks collectively that the accused should get off, they have no alternative but to find them not guilty.
Professor Olusoga was on the radio the other day sying that statues of slave-traders were 'objects of veneration'. I know no-one who 'venerates' such a statue. These people were commemorated in their time as public benefactors for the use they made of their wealth, rather than their slave-owning. The statues should be ept in place as a warning that every public figure has feet of clay.
Professor Olusoga was on the radio the other day sying that statues of slave-traders were 'objects of veneration'. I know no-one who 'venerates' such a statue. These people were commemorated in their time as public benefactors for the use they made of their wealth, rather than their slave-owning. The statues should be ept in place as a warning that every public figure has feet of clay.
It was an object of veneration in its time - commemoration if you prefer. When people change their idols it is normal to remove the old ones from the altar. The place for memorials such as this is now a museum.
Except it wasn’t at the time, there was a deal of trouble getting it paid for and built. (I will see if I can find the article I read explaining that.)
Later when folk objected to it - and that was way before BLM - it then became a bit of a culture war focus.
Colston wasn't commemorated in his time but much much later and this was already controversial. There were plenty abolitionists in 19th century Bristol who knew what he'd done and weren't at all keen. Some Black activists talking about different monuments (eg. Professor Sir Geoff Palmer on the Henry Dundas monument) have gone for variants of 'retain and explain' - so there's now a plaque up detailing Dundas's role in delaying Abolition but this wasn't the mood in Bristol and what the community there thinks (and to some extent their frustration with council foot dragging if I recall correctly) led to a different outcome.
It's interesting, though, to note that the statue was erected well over a century after Colston's death. This article - not necessarily written from a neutral viewpoint - may shed some light: https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/colston-revisited/
<snip> These people were commemorated in their time as public benefactors for the use they made of their wealth, rather than their slave-owning. <snip>
Except Colston was not commemorated in his time, but over 170 years later, possibly as a riposte to the erection of a statue of Edmund Burke who had been critical of Bristol’s involvement in the slave trade. And it seems that there was not much popular support for the erection of the Colston statue.
It was also erected two hundred-odd years after Colston's demise, so removing it is no more or less changing the history of Colston than the Victorians erecting it was. I've seen it written somewhere that the erectors were trying to divert attention from his part in the slave trade, how true that is I can't say however.
Except it wasn’t at the time, there was a deal of trouble getting it paid for and built. (I will see if I can find the article I read explaining that.)
Later when folk objected to it - and that was way before BLM - it then became a bit of a culture war focus.
This article in The Conversation is quite a good summary I think.
Professor Olusoga was on the radio the other day sying that statues of slave-traders were 'objects of veneration'. I know no-one who 'venerates' such a statue. These people were commemorated in their time as public benefactors for the use they made of their wealth, rather than their slave-owning. The statues should be ept in place as a warning that every public figure has feet of clay.
The thing about having feet of clay is that statues fall down as a result, making what happened to the Coulston statue poetic justice.
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Whatever the point of the targetting was, it was still, in law, criminal damage. Prosecuting the perpetrators, or their ringleaders, though, merely made them potential martyrs.
Ms Braverman will hopefully be told that "coming to the wrong verdict" isn't sufficient grounds for an appeal. If the prosecution and the subsequent court case were conducted properly, then that's that.
Ms Braverman will hopefully be told that "coming to the wrong verdict" isn't sufficient grounds for an appeal. If the prosecution and the subsequent court case were conducted properly, then that's that.
It's the administrative equivalent of stamping your feet and sticking out your bottom lip - no chance of working and leaves you looking like a toddler having a tantrum.
The jury returned a perverse verdict, but it still stands. For the record, it was the defendants, not the prosecution, who opted for the case to be tried at crown court before a jury. The verdict shows how wise they, or their advisers, were.
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
I think this is begging the question somewhat. The rule of law does apply universally, but some of the defences against a charge of Criminal Damage - which also apply universally - are contingent on what is targetted and what is damaged and for what reason.
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
I think the location is relevant. If the statue of Cromwell were in, say, Drogheda I think it would end up in the nearest body of water before the Garda could blink and not a word would be said about it. Placed in Westminster it's a declaration of parliamentary sovereignty; in Drogheda it would be a declaration of English imperial power.
But it's a very good explanation as to why it is not a perverse verdict. The defendants have at least two defences against the criminal charge in law. We do not know which arguments the jury found persuasive but it does not matter, the process worked as it should. You are entitled not to like or agree with the outcome but it remains legally sound nonetheless. Any such challenge to the legality of the verdict is fundamentally a challenge to the rule of law.
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
I think this is begging the question somewhat. The rule of law does apply universally, but some of the defences against a charge of Criminal Damage - which also apply universally - are contingent on what is targetted and what is damaged and for what reason.
The question I'm asking is "would you agree with a jury acquitting someone who destroyed Cromwell's statue or Marx's tomb because they agreed with the cause that person was seeking to further"?
Not "would you agree that the jury had the right in law to do so" - which is a given - but "would you think they were right to do so"?
The problem with the prosecution case that it's irrelevant who the statue commemorates it's just criminal damage is that the whole point of targetting that statue was the subject.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
I think this is begging the question somewhat. The rule of law does apply universally, but some of the defences against a charge of Criminal Damage - which also apply universally - are contingent on what is targetted and what is damaged and for what reason.
The question I'm asking is "would you agree with a jury acquitting someone who destroyed Cromwell's statue or Marx's tomb because they agreed with the cause that person was seeking to further"?
Not "would you agree that the jury had the right in law to do so" - which is a given - but "would you think they were right to do so"?
That's an irrelevance because "a jury acquitting someone who destroyed [something] because they agreed with the cause that person was seeking to further" is not what happened here.
In the 1970s, Quebec juries refused to find Henry Morgentaler guilty of violating Canada's then law around abortion. Sometimes juries say either a law or a specific prosecution is an ass.
I'm trying to get at whether you think destruction of statues, memorials, etc is a legitimate form of political protest in all cases, or whether it's more of an "it's OK when people I agree with do it, but not when people I disagree with do it" sort of thing.
For me, I think that if something is OK then it's OK for everyone, and if it's not OK then it's not OK for anyone. So, for example, if BLM get to march through the streets then so do the BNP. And I don't think destroying property as part of a political protest is OK for anyone.
I'm trying to get at whether you think destruction of statues, memorials, etc is a legitimate form of political protest in all cases, or whether it's more of an "it's OK when people I agree with do it, but not when people I disagree with do it" sort of thing.
I think there's an excluded middle here. It's rather "it's OK when it fits under one of the defences available for the offence and the jury accepts that defence."
For me, I think that if something is OK then it's OK for everyone, and if it's not OK then it's not OK for anyone. So, for example, if BLM get to march through the streets then so do the BNP.
Of course they do. Under the same proviso that they are not advocating violence against any particular group in society, nor stirring up hatred for that group. Unfortunately, given what the BNP stand for, that's actually quite hard for them to do. But the law is the same.
I like the example of Cromwell's statue in Drogheda, it shows how important context is. Killing people is an obvious example, a heinous crime or an act of patriotic duty, depending on where, why, how, who.
Another interesting example, pulling down statues of Stalin, post Soviet collapse. But this seems to show how politics interjects into the law. I notice that those complaining about the Colston verdict tend to be right wing.
I am not right wing unless you are so far to the left that everything else is right. But, in law, a statue or anything else being unpopular does not entitle you to destroy or deface it without permission.
I am not right wing unless you are so far to the left that everything else is right. But, in law, a statue or anything else being unpopular does not entitle you to destroy or deface it without permission.
From other reports and what Wainwright has said elsewhere it seems like the Guardian took a somewhat incidental remark of his and reported it as if it was his main defence.
Perhaps so, which does rather lead one to ask why Wainwright said it. You don't improve good arguments by tacking stupid arguments on the end of them. And this is a stupid argument.
It also features significantly in the summary linked to by @alienfromzog above:
Three of the defendants argued that the Colston statue had in fact not been damaged, defined as “temporarily or permanently physically harmed”; that its value had increased as a result of it having been pulled down, salvaged and restored in a museum. It follows that they did not accept intending to damage the statue or being reckless as to whether it was damaged.
It does not follow at all. The secret barrister overlooked a rather obvious logical step there. The defendants all agreed that they helped pull down the statue and throw it in to the harbour, and that they went to the statue with the intent of doing just that.
The secret barrister invites us to consider as logic the claim that because the statue is claimed to have increased in value as a result of its involvement in these protests, the protesters must have known beforehand that this would happen, and therefore were not being reckless as to whether damage was caused.
This, frankly, is nonsense. The idea that anyone tears down a statue and throws it in a harbour whilst thinking that they are improving* the statue is risible.
The claim that throwing the statue in the harbour is reasonable force to prevent the crimes being committed by the exhibition of an offensive statue is interesting. I think in general, I wouldn't buy the "reasonable force" aspect of the claim here. If one accepts (which I think is at least plausible) that the statue is an offence under either section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 or section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, then given that the statue has been there for a long time, it's hard to argue the urgency of the offence that would require throwing the statue in the harbour. You could, I think, fairly argue that the legal process was available to those who wished to object to the statue on those grounds, and so to take direct action against the statue wasn't "reasonable". And in general, that's the "reasonable" action used in our society - someone puts up an offensive / libellous / whatever advert, and the response is to go to court seeking an injunction.
I don't buy any of the legal arguments used in their defence. To me, this looks like a textbook case of jury nullification. And as @Doublethink mentions upthread, this isn't a bug - this is a feature of having juries.
*Colloquially, we do talk about statues of shitty people being "improved" by being destroyed. That's a statement about the value of having statues of shitty people in public, not a claim that damaging a statue of a shitty person is magically not damage.
Comments
Please don't post things that might be legally problematic for us, see host post - Thanks! Louise
Don't need to. If he had done his job properly, they would have been convicted. Their only defence would have been mistaken identity and they admitted responsibility.
Please don't post things that might be legally problematic for us. Thanks! L Epiphanies Host
(ETA Redaction re legal risk, Doublethink, Admin)
As posted with hidden text on KarlLB's Post - I think on balance I'm not keen on people posting satire sites in sensitive threads especially not when it can be taken as a dig at another poster - so please leave that out on this thread.
And can people be mindful of Commandment 7 about not posting illegal or libellous stuff? Please remember to respect what the jury found in this case.
Edited to add that admins have checked with and we're redacting a bit to be on the safe side including tweaking host posts.
Many Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
A judge can never, ever, direct a jury to convict, save where an accused has pleaded not guilty, been placed in charge of the jury, and then changes the plea to guilty.
Have you yet read the summing up?
I apologise if I have offended. I'm sorry about that.
My last post on this thread.
The behaviour of the jury is extraordinary. (As is that of the judge.)
Yeah, and the way it can happen is such that you wouldn't undertake an act in the expectation of being found not-guilty so there is no likelihood of encouraging acts that would not otherwise have taken place.
This is well within how the law normally functions.
That doesn't work. The jury has no say in sentencing. Even if they make a recommendation, there's no obligation on the judge to take any notice. So if the jury thinks collectively that the accused should get off, they have no alternative but to find them not guilty.
It was an object of veneration in its time - commemoration if you prefer. When people change their idols it is normal to remove the old ones from the altar. The place for memorials such as this is now a museum.
Later when folk objected to it - and that was way before BLM - it then became a bit of a culture war focus.
Except Colston was not commemorated in his time, but over 170 years later, possibly as a riposte to the erection of a statue of Edmund Burke who had been critical of Bristol’s involvement in the slave trade. And it seems that there was not much popular support for the erection of the Colston statue.
This article in The Conversation is quite a good summary I think.
The thing about having feet of clay is that statues fall down as a result, making what happened to the Coulston statue poetic justice.
Ms Braverman will hopefully be told that "coming to the wrong verdict" isn't sufficient grounds for an appeal. If the prosecution and the subsequent court case were conducted properly, then that's that.
The jury concluded otherwise.
It's the administrative equivalent of stamping your feet and sticking out your bottom lip - no chance of working and leaves you looking like a toddler having a tantrum.
'Several MPs expressed concern after Thursday's verdict, including former communities secretary Robert Jenrick.
"If you've broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished," he tweeted.
"If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed."'
Translation: "I don't want silly things like proving guilt getting in the way of getting rid of people I don't like".
Notice again the question begging "...and committed criminal damage". As far as the law is concerned the defendants did *not* commit criminal damage.
Hopefully, he and his like will soon be former MPs.
Surely the whole point of having a rule of law is that it applies universally, rather than being applicable or not depending on who the subject happens to be?
Do you think it would be an acceptable act of protest to destroy the statue of Oliver Cromwell in Westminster, or the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery?
I think this is begging the question somewhat. The rule of law does apply universally, but some of the defences against a charge of Criminal Damage - which also apply universally - are contingent on what is targetted and what is damaged and for what reason.
I think the location is relevant. If the statue of Cromwell were in, say, Drogheda I think it would end up in the nearest body of water before the Garda could blink and not a word would be said about it. Placed in Westminster it's a declaration of parliamentary sovereignty; in Drogheda it would be a declaration of English imperial power.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/
But it's a very good explanation as to why it is not a perverse verdict. The defendants have at least two defences against the criminal charge in law. We do not know which arguments the jury found persuasive but it does not matter, the process worked as it should. You are entitled not to like or agree with the outcome but it remains legally sound nonetheless. Any such challenge to the legality of the verdict is fundamentally a challenge to the rule of law.
AFZ
The question I'm asking is "would you agree with a jury acquitting someone who destroyed Cromwell's statue or Marx's tomb because they agreed with the cause that person was seeking to further"?
Not "would you agree that the jury had the right in law to do so" - which is a given - but "would you think they were right to do so"?
That's an irrelevance because "a jury acquitting someone who destroyed [something] because they agreed with the cause that person was seeking to further" is not what happened here.
For me, I think that if something is OK then it's OK for everyone, and if it's not OK then it's not OK for anyone. So, for example, if BLM get to march through the streets then so do the BNP. And I don't think destroying property as part of a political protest is OK for anyone.
I think there's an excluded middle here. It's rather "it's OK when it fits under one of the defences available for the offence and the jury accepts that defence."
Of course they do. Under the same proviso that they are not advocating violence against any particular group in society, nor stirring up hatred for that group. Unfortunately, given what the BNP stand for, that's actually quite hard for them to do. But the law is the same.
And without lawful excuse.
Perhaps so, which does rather lead one to ask why Wainwright said it. You don't improve good arguments by tacking stupid arguments on the end of them. And this is a stupid argument.
It also features significantly in the summary linked to by @alienfromzog above:
It does not follow at all. The secret barrister overlooked a rather obvious logical step there. The defendants all agreed that they helped pull down the statue and throw it in to the harbour, and that they went to the statue with the intent of doing just that.
The secret barrister invites us to consider as logic the claim that because the statue is claimed to have increased in value as a result of its involvement in these protests, the protesters must have known beforehand that this would happen, and therefore were not being reckless as to whether damage was caused.
This, frankly, is nonsense. The idea that anyone tears down a statue and throws it in a harbour whilst thinking that they are improving* the statue is risible.
The claim that throwing the statue in the harbour is reasonable force to prevent the crimes being committed by the exhibition of an offensive statue is interesting. I think in general, I wouldn't buy the "reasonable force" aspect of the claim here. If one accepts (which I think is at least plausible) that the statue is an offence under either section 1 of the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 or section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, then given that the statue has been there for a long time, it's hard to argue the urgency of the offence that would require throwing the statue in the harbour. You could, I think, fairly argue that the legal process was available to those who wished to object to the statue on those grounds, and so to take direct action against the statue wasn't "reasonable". And in general, that's the "reasonable" action used in our society - someone puts up an offensive / libellous / whatever advert, and the response is to go to court seeking an injunction.
I don't buy any of the legal arguments used in their defence. To me, this looks like a textbook case of jury nullification. And as @Doublethink mentions upthread, this isn't a bug - this is a feature of having juries.
*Colloquially, we do talk about statues of shitty people being "improved" by being destroyed. That's a statement about the value of having statues of shitty people in public, not a claim that damaging a statue of a shitty person is magically not damage.
https://theguardian.com/law/2022/jan/07/lawyers-jump-to-juries-defence-as-tories-fume-at-colston-four-verdict
It's all sort of happened before...