poly,

I am neither over nor understating the importance of government. Wether the Jury intended to send a message or not is irrelevant.

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.

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?

I write it off as pedantry because for the most part all I can see is that we are in ‘violent agreement’.

A number of buildings in Bristol have had his name removed. I quite like how people have already forgotten how to spell it.

Ugh – I have found myself agreeing with a haunted pencil –

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59893024

Im torn over this, i get a judge and jury have tried to ensure that we dont support the right wing hetoric from gov.uk, however i cannot help feel that the charge of criminal damage was simple enough and obvious enough to warrant a guilty verdict.

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?

however i cannot help feel that the charge of criminal damage was simple enough and obvious enough to warrant a guilty verdict.

That they pulled down the statue and chucked it in the harbour wasn’t disputed. As noted upthread, there are valid defences to the charge, which is I believe what happened.

As @igm and others have pointed out, these statues were put up after the event by people interested only in promoting a certain version of history (or we could just call it a myth and have done with it) It hardly needs saying that if any people deserve memorialising it should be the victims.

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?

thanks ransos

there are valid defences to the charge, which is I believe what happened.

but generally -to what extend does a valid defence stretch? UK law is built on the basis that it’s applied consitently. It could easily argue that the valid defence would have been, you should have used a constructive approach for it’s removal. And in my rather crdue example above, that joe bloggs is not allowed to be judge jury and executioner?

@sui not per your example but there are a lot of cases each year that are “not in the public interest” so don’t get processed, I’m pretty sure that some of them would throw up the odd jury response if they were processed. Also various legal means of removing the statue had been agreed but had been stalled.

That’s why they started (or continued, post-Brexit) their culture war in the first place

The government aren’t the one wanting to tear down statues.

The government aren’t the one wanting to tear down statues.

Statues? No. Statutes? Yes.

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’

@inkster

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

‘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.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/06/jurors-see-the-bigger-picture-activists-who-were-cleared-in-court

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.

@Sui

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!