Today Jurors were outside courts protesting their right to make decisions based on evidence heard.
One said : "Jurors should be free to make the decision they feel is right based on the full information.
I’m here today to deliver a clear message, this will not stand and I’m willing to be arrested to make this point crystal clear.”
This (I believe) has been organised by a town Councillor who was jailed for breaking a crown court judge’s ruling by ‘explaining to the jury why she had taken action’.
Do we agree with these protestors?
Ps. I believe they were peaceful and zero disruption was caused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *irldnCouple 22 weeks ago
Brighton |
Any more context on this? I thought juries did make decisions of guilt and innocence based on evidence presented to them, pass their verdict to the judge who then determines, based on legal precedents, what the punishment should be. Or am I missing something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any more context on this? I thought juries did make decisions of guilt and innocence based on evidence presented to them, pass their verdict to the judge who then determines, based on legal precedents, what the punishment should be. Or am I missing something? "
I purposely left some out to see what people thought on the protest rather than the trial that led to the protest.
However, the Councillor was jailed for contempt after the judge had blocked her from speaking about climate change. She was on trial as an insulate Britain protestor charged with causing a public nuisance for taking part in a protest in Bishopsgate in October 2021.
She, along with co-defendant Amy Pritchard, 38, represented themselves during the trial and were banned by Judge Silas Reid from using their concerns about fuel poverty or the environment in their own defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Saw them at my local court sat in the rain with that pinched constipated expression.
They are a JSO off shoot that’s all that needs to be said really.
We live in a world where you can get locked up for silently praying in your head outside an abortion clinic nothing surprise me anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 22 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
They are wrong...
A jury is there to evaluate the facts and to decide whether the facts of the case are true or not, based on the evidence supplied.
They are not afforded a decision on whether a law is correct or not, simply did a person through their actions or inactions lead to a law being broken, are they guilty or not.
Applying a moral slant on the law will make the facts being provided meaningless. This is then not a fair trial, not only to the person being accused but to others who may not be treated the same for exactly the same actions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We're they jurours or just protestors ?
We're all Jurors.
But in this case, they weren't active Jurors I don't think. "
yeh just read a bit. I thought they were protesting about a trial they were in ! It reads differently if it's just a mishmash of people protesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are wrong...
A jury is there to evaluate the facts and to decide whether the facts of the case are true or not, based on the evidence supplied.
They are not afforded a decision on whether a law is correct or not, simply did a person through their actions or inactions lead to a law being broken, are they guilty or not.
Applying a moral slant on the law will make the facts being provided meaningless. This is then not a fair trial, not only to the person being accused but to others who may not be treated the same for exactly the same actions.
"
Well said,a fair trial should mean just that.
A juror should judge the case they are asked to based on fact's otherwise it's not a fair trial.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any more context on this? I thought juries did make decisions of guilt and innocence based on evidence presented to them, pass their verdict to the judge who then determines, based on legal precedents, what the punishment should be. Or am I missing something?
I purposely left some out to see what people thought on the protest rather than the trial that led to the protest.
However, the Councillor was jailed for contempt after the judge had blocked her from speaking about climate change. She was on trial as an insulate Britain protestor charged with causing a public nuisance for taking part in a protest in Bishopsgate in October 2021.
She, along with co-defendant Amy Pritchard, 38, represented themselves during the trial and were banned by Judge Silas Reid from using their concerns about fuel poverty or the environment in their own defence. "
Doesn’t this contradict the reasoning behind the smashed windows lot getting off? Or am i misunderstanding?
I thought they were allowed to say why they did it as a defence, which then showed it wasn’t criminal intent or something. And if so it begs the question why is it a suitable defence for criminal damage but not public nuisance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If I punch a person in the street the fact is that's assault.
If they were trying to rob me and threatened to punch me then I would have a defence.
You can provide reasoning for your actions and it's up to a jury of your peers to accept that or not.
People might not like it but that's the law of the land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Today Jurors were outside courts protesting their right to make decisions based on evidence heard.
One said : "Jurors should be free to make the decision they feel is right based on the full information.
I’m here today to deliver a clear message, this will not stand and I’m willing to be arrested to make this point crystal clear.”
This (I believe) has been organised by a town Councillor who was jailed for breaking a crown court judge’s ruling by ‘explaining to the jury why she had taken action’.
Do we agree with these protestors?
Ps. I believe they were peaceful and zero disruption was caused. "
If as I'm reading this this means the person jury tampered. Then they have broken the ruling and should be jailed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are wrong...
A jury is there to evaluate the facts and to decide whether the facts of the case are true or not, based on the evidence supplied.
They are not afforded a decision on whether a law is correct or not, simply did a person through their actions or inactions lead to a law being broken, are they guilty or not.
Applying a moral slant on the law will make the facts being provided meaningless. This is then not a fair trial, not only to the person being accused but to others who may not be treated the same for exactly the same actions.
"
Exactly this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We live in a world where you can get locked up for silently praying in your head outside an abortion clinic nothing surprise me anymore. "
You can't get locked up for that in itself, but you can get locked up for breaching an order that prevents protests in a certain place. That includes an arrest on suspicion of breaching the order, so that more evidence may be gathered, if it exists.
If prayer works, why must the person praying go to a certain place? Me, I think they go to that place to put pressure on the people using the clinic, and that is what such bans on protest seek to stop.
Surely those that pray should also be honest about their intentions and why they are in a certain place?
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any more context on this? I thought juries did make decisions of guilt and innocence based on evidence presented to them, pass their verdict to the judge who then determines, based on legal precedents, what the punishment should be. Or am I missing something?
I purposely left some out to see what people thought on the protest rather than the trial that led to the protest.
However, the Councillor was jailed for contempt after the judge had blocked her from speaking about climate change. She was on trial as an insulate Britain protestor charged with causing a public nuisance for taking part in a protest in Bishopsgate in October 2021.
She, along with co-defendant Amy Pritchard, 38, represented themselves during the trial and were banned by Judge Silas Reid from using their concerns about fuel poverty or the environment in their own defence. "
Surely, their concerns about climate change is a plea in mitigation, not a defence. If they protested illegally, and evidence was brought to prove that, the jury must find them guilty, whatever their reason?
Subsequently it is the Judge's task, after a guilty verdict, to hand down the sentence after hearing the mitigation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
