Good News At Last

Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?

If you’re going to be a dick then you’re probably best doing it in the pub or somewhere with less impact than in front of the person who’s about to pass sentence on you, no?

If you’re not bright enough to figure that one out for yourself, I don’t think you can expect much sympathy

Binners – really?

In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted.  this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.

the crime here is also NOT the protest but organising the protest.  thought crime.

Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws and that they were not allowed to make the defense let alone the absurd sentance

The environment slipped this year as the tories drove the country off a cliff, immediate concerns, like vote the **** out will have pushed the environment down the agenda.

I voted tactically to do my bit, but under a PR system would vote green.

I for one have considered where is I’d be professionally if I took part in a demonstration on behalf only the environment.

This sentencing only makes me more militant…

disruption from climate change is in the post for the vast majority of us – JSO are highlighting it – the courts are criminalising it – imo a harsh but suspended ‘we get it but the act is bad’ would’ve been fair – 5 years for it is uncalled for and isn’t a good look for the justice system (or irc)

Uncle Jezza… thought crime?

Seriously.., get a grip.

I’m not passing comment on the cause. I’m passing comment on their behaviour once arrested, charged and put on trial.

Once on trial – which they presumably expected, given their antics/protests/whatever – they deliberately decided to behave like dicks in the courtroom despite being warned repeatedly to pack it in.

So they opted to deliberately and intentionally do a bit of courtroom grandstanding to wind up the person who was about to sentence them

Like… der!

If you’re that dense, then you deserve everything you get.

Unless the harsh sentence is what you were after in the first place

Have any of them actually commented on the sentence? I expect their happy as Larry having made themselves martyrs through their own stupidity

They’re like a really shit Taliban

In the past climate campaigners have made the defense of necessity ie climate change is so serious they had to do whatever they did and been acquitted.  this judge ( and others) have made it so that defense can no longer be used.

The Attorney General appealed a case that used this defence, the high court upheld the appeal, which means that the judge in this case has to take that into account, so no, this judge did not decide to make it no longer available, that was done via the previous government and the high court, meaning all judges have to interpret this ruling into their cases.

yes binners – this prosecution was for a thought crime.
Check it out.  “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”  Is what they were prosecuted for and the defense of “lawful excuse” was denied them

Its a profound injustice they were ever prosecuted under these draconian laws

They weren’t given 5 year sentences under “draconian laws” they were given those sentences partly because they **** about in court and had to be arrested (again).

I agree that the judges’ rule that they couldn’t mention climate change was harsh, but it’s not in of itself unusual to restrict those kinds of evidence submissions, had they engaged barristers on their behalf they could’ve probably successfully argued against it. Instead they chose civil disobedience (again), which given how much latitude judges in the UK  have in their own courts [when sentencing] wasn’t the smartest move ever, or couldn’t have come as massive surprise either

So all the breathless headlines saying they got 5 years for protesting and so forth are incorrect (no surprise there) agendas make for more exciting reading than the actuality.

Good point Argee.  It wasn’t the judges decision as such

Check it out.  “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”

So did they actually plan it or were they just casually thinking  about planning it?  Mulling it over in their heads?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that only one of those things would result in a conviction

Or are you suggesting that if a group of Jihadist (or for balance far right) terrorists were arrested while only at the planning stage of blowing lots of people up, then they shouldn’t be tried as this essentially only amounts to a ‘thought crime’?

It’s not dense behaviour, it’s logical and consistent behaviour. If you put yourself in a position of multifaceted risk by blocking the M25 with your physical form because you have no respect for a system that pollutes the planet and sends entire species into extinction, why the **** would you suddenly be all respectful in front of someone placed in a position of authority who represents that very same system? You’re in the system whether you’re in jail or not.

No – they got 5 years for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

conspiracy to commit murder is rather different from conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.  Looking up conspiracy perhaps might be worthwhile as well.  You do not have to commit the act for the conspiracy charge to be valid and you can get as in this case years in jail for conspiracy to commit a no jail time offense

Ok… I’m playing devils advocate here because I’m not talking about the cause, I’m talking about the rule of law.

So… Tommy Robinson and Britain First all passionately believe that this countries problems are caused by immigration

So they decide to plot to bring the road system of the south east to a standstill to highlight their cause

They are arrested while at the planning stage and charged.

They decide to defend themselves and repeatedly interrupt proceedings to shout far right slogans, despite being repeatedly told by the judge not to

As a result of this they are particularly harshly sentenced

I presume you’d all be up in arms over their treatment and condemning at as ‘thought crime’?

Harsh Nickc? – as Argee pointed out it was a political decision to make these defenses inadmissible because folk had been using them to be acquitted.

This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy

Or are you suggesting that if a group of Jihadist (or for balance far right) terrorists were arrested while only at the planning stage of blowing lots of people up, then they shouldn’t be tried as this essentially only amounts to a ‘thought crime’?

Two of the four were arrested near the gantry ready to go. One had bought the climbing kit and rented the accommodation. The other one was the bloke who organised it all. It had progressed far beyond a casual discussion about options.

Bi8nners – false equivalence because the far right slogans are probably illegal in themselves unlike the climate change ones are not – and yes I would fight for their right to have a peaceful protest if they were capable of such a thing and kept within the laws around incitement to racial hatred

You either believe in the right to peaceful protest or you  do not.

I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them.  Inverse snobbery?

This is the sort of thing you would see in a totalitarian state not a liberal democracy

No, this is exactly what you get in a liberal democracy if you absolutely insist on being a tit

I am astonished you support this and your gleeful attitude to them.  Inverse snobbery?

I haven’t supported or not supported anything. What I’m defending is the impartial application of our democratically decided laws, applied through an independent judiciary

Its you and various others that seem to have an issue with that, because you support that particular cause, so maybe it’s you who has more in common with North Korea, Kim Jong Jezza?

Do you think the suffragettes should have had massive jail sentences?  The greenham common protestors?  The anti apartheid protesters?  The anti nazi protesters?  the pro choice protesters?

You seem to have a problem understanding the concept of the impartiality of the independent judiciary in a democracy

Which bit are you struggling with?

Because it looks like you’re advocating totalitarianism

Tandem Putin!  

Errmmm – do you realise that the best defenses they have have been removed from them?  Defenses that has worked in the past.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/18/climate-protesters-in-england-and-wales-lose-criminal-damage-defence

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/sep/28/colston-four-protesters-cannot-rely-on-human-rights-defence-top-judge-rules

these are defenses that have been removed from protesters having been successfully used in the past.

Its an unjust law

Its you that is gleefully enjoying a totalitarian law here.  Not allowed top speak in their defense

democratically decided laws

Errrmmm – the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician.  Nothing democratic about having your rights that have been enjoyed for hundreds of years removed on the whim of a politician.  No democvratic votye on this

I’m sure that Stalin would have insisted that the establishment of communism was a worthwhile cause to create a traffic jam on the M25.

The court would have declared that inadmissible too. You can’t just pick and choose Pol Jezza

Isn’t a courtroom probably at the top of the list of places to not casually discard rule number one?

That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge.  The judge stating that climate change is opinion display a breach of Rule 1 by the learned gentleman (who would appear to be incompetent to try the case by reason of the section in bold).

Lets get this right.  You think thats it right that a basic legal defense successfully used previously and a long standing principle in UK law has been removed on the whim of a politician.  I find it odd you are on the same side as Braverman on this and on the opposite side to the UN bod, amnesty, and various other civil rights organisations

Weird

That applies to all within the court and doubly so for the judge

Yeah, but he’s got the wig on so… you know… probably worth taking note of the difference in job title and subsequent power balance between ‘your honour’ and ‘the accused’ before being a dick

Just a thought

the defense was removed on the whim of a hard right politician.

A democratically elected hard right politician.

If you don’t like the laws get yourself elected and change them.

So to clarify Binners, is your position on this…… that because in court, they repeatedly tried to use as a defence, something which up until this point has previously been allowed, but as a result of the Tory clamp down on protest was now deemed illegal, that they deserve 5 years in jail and should just take this lying down?

This clampdown and shutdown of protest, let’s not forget, in the name of climate justice, was pushed for by Lee Anderson and Stella Braverman amongst others. Your response is that they’re dreaded weirdos and deserve everything that they get? Brill.

I am waiting  for Keir Starmer to amend this draconian unjust law which has caused the imprisonment of these brave freedom fighters.

Are the grown-ups posting pictures again?

We are all subject to the same laws. They are set by democratically elected governments (which we may or may not have voted for) and applied equally to all by an independent judiciary

if any of us find ourselves in a court of law, we are all subject to the same proceedings and judgements, which we will be made well aware of

You are suggesting that the people who’s cause you agree with should be cut more slack than those who’s causes you don’t agree with or who don’t have a ‘cause’ at all to use as an excuse for their lawbreaking

They seemed to think that because they personally thought their cause was just that they should be somehow exempt to the laws that cover the rest of us.

I’m sure most criminals could come up with some argument or other to say the same

I’m not expressing an opinion either way about what causes I think are more just than others. I’m simply saying that we are all equal under the law and if you decide that’s not the case, and you possess some sort of entitlement to exemplary considerations, then there’s a potential price to be paid for that.

You then run the risk that said independent judiciary may take a pretty dim view of your sense of entitlement and exceptionalism

You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’

Will you be applying this to all cases before the courts, or just this one?

What if you’re busy before a trial starts so you can’t inform the judge who the goodies and the baddies are?

The attorney general at the time raised an appeal, which the high court reviewed, and it was the high court that made the ruling, can’t remember the AG’s name, female tory KC, but to raise and be successful with the appeal, they would have had to have a decent argument.

Again, no real understanding of all the goings on in this trial, but two things you don’t do in court is be in contempt, and jury tampering, both of which it sounds like happened during this trial on several occasions, but not at a level to have a mistrial.

It has a feel of being a bit of a show trial by ER/JSO, so doubt it’ll stop whatever is coming next, personally, i have no real feel for this one, sentences look harsh, but i think everyone who understands what’s been going on with JSO and other protests, changes to legislation and so on, is this a line in the sand for future protests, will it escalate, it’s not looking great.

You’re essentially insisting on a two tier system of justice, depending on who you personally think is right or ‘worthy’

There is a two tier system of justice and it is exactly what we need to be fighting against. Look at what happened on the Sarah Everard vigil. Look at what happened to the Republic protesters at the coronation. Now look at the comparative wide berth given to Tommy Robinson and his gang of psychotic thugs. As TJ has pointed out, the very banners and slogan many of them parade could be classed as hate crimes.

Yet Hallam et al are denied the right of use of a defence which has historically been deemed as acceptable. This has been pushed through by authoritarian idealogues. You claim it as an example of liberal democracy. That is a mistake. Instead, it is an example of iliberal democracy, one of the key manifestations of right wing populist governments. It is a clear assault on true liberal democracy and it is very dangerous to not call it out as such. Look at what the more radical right in America are doing in the courts right now. That is not democractic in any sense, yet it is happening in the ‘land of the free’.

You can rail against it all you like, but the sentences handed out today (which I personally think are absolutely preposterous) are entirely of their own making

You don’t get to ignore the rules that apply to everyone else because of some sense of personal righteousness.

Well, you can, but this is what happens

I’ll repeat again: if it was Tommy Robinson doing it –  who I don’t doubt feels just as passionately about his particular ‘cause’ as JSO do – you’d all be cheering his 5 year sentence

We either have an impartial, independent system of justice – that is blind to ‘causes’ and concentrated on the actual law –  or we don’t.  And if we don’t then we’re all ****ed!

You may be personally unhappy with todays judgements, but the alternative is far, far worse, because who gets to decide which causes are just and which aren’t?

The judges summing up is a good read. It expains fully the reasons for these entirely justified sentences. Not least that the planned disruption was far worse than that they succeeded in achieving. The consensus view on climate change is accepted.

The conduct of Hallam during the trial did not add to his sentence but derived him of any mitigation based on the plea he was a changed man.

Multiple previous convictions with light sentences had not deterred them.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf

^ that’s the side that you’re on Binners. A troll posting shite to poke fun at David Lammy yesterday….I can’t imagine his motivation for that thread.

My motivation? I hadn’t seen it before and was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.

Troll?  Just someone with different opinions to you. Last time I checked that was allowed.

^ that’s the side that you’re on Binners

Sides?

Do you not get what I’m saying?

I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise

There shouldn’t be, and can’t be ‘sides’ when it comes to legal  proceedings and judgements. That’s the way it just has to be

 … was amazed that someone with such a poor grasp of common knowledge and history was now our Foreign Secretary.

I’m amazed that you’re amazed.  It’s hardly like incompetence is a new phenomenon amongst cabinet reshuffles.

In this particular role, in the last ten years prior to Lammy we’ve had: David Cameron, James Cleverly, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson.  Paragons of virtue and intellectual heavyweights all I’m sure you’ll agree, Lammy sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison.

I’m simply making the point that the judicial system needs to be completely impartial and independent and free from external interference, no matter how worthy or otherwise

correct – and this is not.  The removal of the necessity defense was a political act of interference from a politican.