cheers dickyboy, but in those cases (as i thnk your saying) they don't reach trial in the first place, much like this shouldn't have.
Trial decisions are always used as basis for subsequent case law, so as someone said earlier, guilty in this case should have been the correct legal outcome, but with little to no punishment.
As a whole the trial and subsequent verdict had the right political outcome, but i think it's outcome is bad for the application of UK law.
but generally -to what extend does a valid defence stretch?
I've no idea, but the jury was obviously persuaded...
It could easily argue that the valid defence would have been, you should have used a constructive approach for it’s removal.
That's been tried. There wasn't even agreement about modifying the wording for the plaque. Again, I wasn't there, but I suspect part of the defence would've been that other avenues had been explored.
so as someone said earlier, guilty in this case should have been the correct legal outcome
Why do you believe you know better than the people who actually heard all of the evidence?
And now that a certain interpretation of slavery has been impressed upon us, i.e., that the history of slavery is and only is something done by white people to black people, now what?
By the sounds of it, you'd like to see it brought back. You seem to be going to great lengths to justify the glorification of slave traders and defending their ‘legacy’
I am neither over nor understating the importance of government. Wether the Jury intended to send a message or not is irrelevant.
lots of people (and I can't be bothered with looking back pages on this dreadful forum software) to see if you were one of them have drawn an inference that the Jury intended to send a message. Its unfair to juries to read into their decisions which they cannot (in this country) explain. Doing so means the next time a jury come to make a perhaps unexpected decision some jurors might be concerned how their decision will be perceived. Its likely that the jurors were more interested in the fate of the four defendants than the message it would send to the home office.
The circumstances of this trial had been unduly influenced by the sitting administration and that act would inevitably be reflected in any verdict. It’s the way things are, not the way any of us want them to be.
If either the defence or the judge believed there was undue influence they'd have suggested a retrial. Now people who should know better may have stepped over the line - but did it have any influence is a different question. Unless you think if the government had been silent the jury would have found these four guilty then I can't see how its influenced the trial.
You describe the composition of the Jury in such a way as to imply that I hadn’t thought of this? Did you think I thought the Jury was somehow made up of wokeists sending a message to government? Why would I assume that the Jury was composed any differently to the way in which you describe?
My point was that very few people in a jury room are trying to make a political point or send a message to the government. Some are doing their task and others are just along for the ride. Realistically 11 people weren't standing up to the government, at best a few might have been, the rest just wanted to get home and get on with their lives or judge the case as best the could on the evidence and arguments put before them.
Trial decisions are always used as basis for subsequent case law, so as someone said earlier, guilty in this case should have been the correct legal outcome, but with little to no punishment.
Not in Crown Court, no jury decision may bind the decision of another jury. In the Appeal and Supreme Courts yes they do set precedent and influence future judgements. If the Home Secretary in a fit of pique asks for this to be referred upwards and loses then she stands a good chance of holing the new Police and Crime Bill before it becomes statute. Which would be delicious!
guilty in this case should have been the correct legal outcome
The correct legal outcome in a trial by jury is by definition the verdict passed by the jury. It's as straightforward as that.
Juries aren't always right of course and you're free to hold another opinion about what they should have decided but regardless, their verdict is absolutely the "legal outcome".
Trial decisions are always used as basis for subsequent case law, so as someone said earlier, guilty in this case should have been the correct legal outcome, but with little to no punishment.
The independent legal expert on channel 4 news last night said that this categorically does not set any legal precedent
Surely the only ‘correct legal outcome’ is the one that a jury delivers, having assessed all the evidence?
edited: posted after previous replies
Why do you believe you know better than the people who actually heard all of the evidence?
purely on the basis of applying law consistently, im not a legal beagle, my knowledge extends to a GCSE in it, but on the premis of - both withnessed and admitted guilt to an offence, the correct outcome purley from a logical sense is guilty.. i stress im not disagreeing with the ultimate outcome, but the journey to it seems a farce.
By the sounds of it, you’d like to see it brought back. You seem to be going to great lengths to justify the glorification of slave traders and defending their ‘legacy’
No, firstly, I just object to this dominant interpretation of slavery that says slavery was the Atlantic Slave trade and it was done by white people to black people, and secondly, I object to permanently-placing slavery at the centre of British life and consciousness.
For example, if you want context, which the anti-racists profess to love, why not also say that the contemporary African elites in kingdoms such as Benin were just as complicit in the trade as much as the likes of Coulston; it was they who sold the slaves to the traders for textiles, guns and rum? Nobody wants to mention that. Nobody also wants to mention that slavery is a historical norm and that the Arab slave trade was far bigger overall than the Atlantic slave trade. When it is said that the journey across that Atlantic callously (and deliberately) killed thousands of slaves, why is nobody mentioning that the death rate for the European sailors was as high if not higher?
Trial decisions are always used as basis for subsequent case law,
Only where they’re sufficiently similar for a previous case to be relevant. I can’t use this case as a defence to tearing down the statue of Winston Churchill. A defence would have to convince a judge that the next case was sufficiently close in circumstances to this one for the same decision to have any bearing. Additionally, decisions in lower courts are not binding on higher ones.
A geniune question, can a judge, and therefore a jury find someone not guilty for something which is as clear as day, as long as the mitigating circumstances are such that it invalidates a guilty verdict? (as in what we’ve seen with this verdict)
Clive Ponting might fit that criteria , acquittal but he thought he was going to be convicted iirc
For example., if you want context, which the anti-racists profess to love, why not also say that the contemporary African elites in kingdoms such as Benin were just as complicit in the trade as much as the likes of Coulston; it was they who sold the slaves to the traders for textiles, guns and rum
Are there many statues of them up in UK City Centres? I must confess to not having seen any. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention
Or maybe that’s just total ‘whataboutery’
@binners - no but we did have the Benin bronzes and nobody is demanding an inquest to determine if they were financed by the slave trade like the National Trust is doing with their properties.
but on the premis of – both withnessed and admitted guilt to an offence, the correct outcome purley from a logical sense is guilty.
This isn't correct. Committing the act (which isn't in dispute) doesn't necessarily make you guilty of the offence, because there is a valid defence.
ransos
Free Member
but on the premis of – both withnessed and admitted guilt to an offence, the correct outcome purley from a logical sense is guilty.This isn’t correct. Committing the act (which isn’t in dispute) doesn’t necessarily make you guilty of the offence, because there is a valid defence.
that's exactly the point im trying to understand - if it's there in law then fine, it's being applied consitently and i will shut up, but i was not aware of this..
@binners – no but we did have the Benin bronzes and nobody is demanding an inquest to determine if they were financed by the slave trade like the National Trust is doing with their properties.
That’s your justification?
Wouldn’t that be a bit like nicking someone’s car and then objecting on moral grounds when you find out they financed it’s purchase through the proceeds of dealing drugs? 😂
A geniune question, can a judge, and therefore a jury find someone not guilty for something which is as clear as day, as long as the mitigating circumstances are such that it invalidates a guilty verdict?
A jury can - known IIRC as a "perverse judgement" or similar. the folk who got off with blocking the deportation game were as guilty as sin but found not guilty. There have been some whistleblowing ones as well POnting was one
https://www.thejusticegap.com/not-only-a-right-but-a-duty-a-history-of-perverse-verdicts/
if it’s there in law then fine, it’s being applied consitently and i will shut up, but i was not aware of this..
Are you aware of a similar case where this defence wasn't accepted? I've not seen anything.
Wouldn’t that be a bit like nicking someone’s car and then objecting on moral grounds when you find out they financed it’s purchase through the proceeds of dealing drugs? 😂
Why not? Even one of the defendants said anti-racism is a global movement.
I've seen some commentary saying that the jury should have to accept the judges view (I don't know if that was guilty or not-guilty), or that they have to be found guilty with "Something" surely that would make the whole concept of trial by jury pointless.
I object to permanently-placing slavery at the centre of British life and consciousness.
Firstly; is it?
Secondly; The Industrial revolution that directly profited from and in turn drove the "industrialisation" of the slave trade is the reason Western Europe largely and Britain in particular jumped perhaps as much as 100 years ahead relative to pretty much everywhere else on the globe, it powered colonialisation and warfare, and can be rightly viewed as one of the reasons the British Empire was a successful as it was. Slavery is THE trade at centre of the of all it, it's the reason there was and largely still is, so much wealth in this otherwise unremarkable small country floating off the coast of Europe.
Applying law, including case law, consistently is of course desirable, but also difficult as no two cases are ever identical in every facet. As I said, both prosecutors and defences can argue for the application of previous rulings in their current case, but they have to persuade the judge that it applies.
Are you aware of a similar case where this defence wasn’t accepted? I’ve not seen anything.
Kelleher and the Thatcher statue. As before, the judge essentially said in order for the defence to be valid, you'd have to demonstrate a direct harm. First jury hung, second convicted.
Ironic that damaging a statue of someone who tried to eradicate poverty by eradicating the poor gets a jail sentence and damaging a guy who actually did try and help the poor gets nothing.
@nickc except that argument doesn't stack up because slavery has been practised by many times and societies, not just the British in their colonies in the Americas. Slavery is therefore not a sufficient condition for an industrial revolution.
A geniune question, can a judge, and therefore a jury find someone not guilty for something which is as clear as day, as long as the mitigating circumstances are such that it invalidates a guilty verdict? (as in what we’ve seen with this verdict) Can you already, or does this allow a precedcence to be set allowing something as extreme as murder (apologies for the crude example), but dad finds (not in the process off, but after) rapist of 5 year old daughter and kills him?
Firstly a jury can acquit without providing any explanation. An appeal is only likely to be successful if the judge misguided them in their task, although I think an appeal can also be sought if the jury return a verdict which no reasonable jury could be expected to do: that is a very high bar unless they were misdirected or something comes to light about a dodgy juror. In general, though the briefing to the jury is that they should find the facts - did the person commit the offence, rather than worry about the impact of that finding. However part of deciding whether someone commits the offence is about determining whether they have any statutory defence. The analogy of murder is perhaps easiest to use - if I kill someone, and openly admit to killing them then I've committed murder right? the jury would need to convict me? Not necessarily there are a number of well-recognised defences: insanity, self defence (or defence of another) are common examples that juries decide upon every day. Sometimes those defences are explicitly laid out in legislation, and others they are based on case law and years of testing where the limits are. Generally, case law (precedent) is only set by the higher courts, so this (Crown Court) case doesn't even create precedent for other criminal damage cases never mind cases of completely other types. Even if it went to appeal and the appeal court were to create precedent it would only be for cases that are truly comparable facts and circumstances.
Secondly, yes in some rare circumstances the judge can effectively take a jury's guilty verdict and immediately declare an absolute discharge. I think it is unlikely this case would have met that test but yes a judge can take a case where someone has clearly broken the law and decide not to impose any penalty (the exact implications of an Absolute Discharge vary in different parts of the UK and depending on the type of case - but in all cases no punishment is imposed, there is no further action and the offence is immediately spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act).
thanks Poly!
this otherwise unremarkable small country floating off the coast of Europe.
Hmm I'm not sure that's quite accurate. England/Britain is somewhat unusual in certain ways, as are many countries. But you have to ask how come it was Britain that was in a position to create and ship that many slaves and why it wanted to in the first place.
But that's for another thread.
As another example of a perverse verdict, this is an amazing case where a group of women broke into an airbase and smashed up a Hawk fighter jet which was about to be exported to Indonesia, causing a million quid's worth of damage. They handed themselves in and admitted to the act, but were still found not guilty by the jury on the basis that they were preventing a greater crime.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/disarming-war-hawk-ploughshares-story/
My understanding of this new bill is that it still allows for a 'trial by Jury' option, so the same thing could have happened?
That said, it was obviously a political trial and the people of Bristol won.
I do think we need to teach more black history in schools. I imagine 14yr olds in Tower Hamlets not being too interested in 1066 etc but Windrush and the slave trade would be more appropriate.
There is a statue of 'Clive of India' in Shrewsbury, but I can't see the locals knocking that one over!
Kelleher and the Thatcher statue. As before, the judge essentially said in order for the defence to be valid, you’d have to demonstrate a direct harm.
Doesn't that prove the point? That the defence needs to convince the jury that the relevant level of harm is demonstrated? Not that the damage itself automatically means the defendant is guilty.
Ironic that damaging a statue of someone who tried to eradicate poverty by eradicating the poor gets a jail sentence and damaging a guy who actually did try and help the poor gets nothing.
I think the world would be better off if Colston had never tried to "help" anyone.
@ tthew
Just back up a few hours here.Actually, chewkw does make a valid point…
Now I know the country is truly knackered.
Knackered? We are all knackered.
Or may be sleepwalking into a "new wave of cultural revolution" (which I see the similarities with) which some do not know or pretend not to know but either way it is the way things work nowadays.
IMO one should Never change for anyone (referring to all sides in any political context) cause that's just a waste of time and fight to the end.
I disagree with the destruction of whatever of statues because they are very similar to CCP brute force good or bad as I draw similarity with CCP's actions. One day in the future in China Mao statue will face the same same outcome as they did when they (CCP) destroyed others' "idols". It will be their turn ...
In the eyes of the CCP anyone or any thing that is famous dead or alive with followers are considered idols. The term idols is also used in certain religion(s) that prohibits the depiction of human feature. There is No way to convince them in anyway or form.
Life is short.
If anybody is interested in the actual reasons why they were not guilty, there was a Criminal Barrister on Adrian Chiles/5Live about 1230 (Matt Scott I believe his name) who gave a thorough but simple explanation.
FWIW there had been much un-happiness about this statue for years and no way it was going to be removed 'officially'.
FWIW there had been much un-happiness about this statue for years and no way it was going to be removed ‘officially’.
Get a vote of some sort from the people whole live in that city before taking action perhaps is a better way.
This case was never about criminal damage, it was all about people daring to stand up to the wrongs of British history and the institution.
The right is accused of ‘dividing us’ but otoh the left want a strict racial division enforced in this country through culture and teaching
Dear god! You’re literally like a living Daily Mail editorial page 😂
Can you give us even a single solitary example of anyone proposing enforced ‘racial division’ through culture or teaching then, Peter Hitchins?
This case was never about criminal damage, it was all about people daring to stand up to the wrongs of British history and the institution.
Why does an interesting multi-faceted story have to be reduced to just one thing?
Can you give us even a single solitary example of anyone proposing enforced ‘racial division’ through culture or teaching then, Peter Hitchins?
What do you think black history is then?
What do you think black history is then?
er, history? Is this a trick question?
not racial division but an attempt to make history more relevant and accurate
I'll ghive you one example of why this is needed. Florence nightingale is seen as the hero of the Crimean hospitals and the inventor of modern nursing
Actually Mary Seacole was far more important in many ways but no one has heard of her - because she is black?
Black as an identity category is thoroughly modern, so it makes absolutely no sense, indeed is ahistorical, to 'begin' black history in antiquity (as is being done).
My issue is with framing history according to contemporary identity politics. It strikes me as not only divisive (since it will never end by itself) but ahistorical for reasons mentioned. What's the aim here?
Black as an identity category is thoroughly modern
Wrong - it goes back centuries.
the aim is accuracy and representation of those ignored by history?
have you herd of Florence Nightingale? I am sure you have but have you heard of Mary Seacole - at least as important a person
identity politics
What is that, roughly?
Wrong – it goes back centuries.
the aim is accuracy and representation of those ignored by history?
Race is a concept invented in the 17th century as the Age of Enlightenment begins. It's then given a lot more valency by so-called scientific racism in the 19th century.
Political Blackness (note the capitalisation) then takes off in the US with the struggles against first slavery and then for civil rights.
It most certainly does not go back to antiquity and by pretending it does we essentialize it.
As for some 'conspiracy' to devalue the achievements of black Britons, it's estimated that prior to the mass immigration of the 20th century there was never more than about 10,000 people in Britain who would now be classified as black.
