Apologies if someone else has posted about this. I've just read that the four lefties who toppled the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol have been cleared of a criminal damage charge :wtf: the defendants laughed as the verdicts were returned, prompting cheers from the gallery. I'm sure this was all filmed and shown on TV News, so how have they got away with this ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sounds like it. How is the question for me though.
Does this mean the statue of Alex Ferguson can be taken down from outside Old Trafford with no fear of jail ? asking for a friend.... :grin:
In normal circumstances the chances of 12 normal random jury members, all watching the video which showed, in clear detail, the four defendants toppling the statue, & then deciding that the defendants didn't commit criminal damage is virtually impossible.
Therefore the only logical explanation has to be one of three reasons.
a: the jury was carefully selected.
b: the jury had been instructed what verdict they were expected to reach.
c: the jury members were aware of threats to them.
The major flaw in the UK jury system is that the jury members can't discuss the case or flag-up any shenanigans.
Jurors are selected at random
The panel may be but sfaik the defence can reject some but that may only be in serious cases. My question here is why is a case of criminal damage being held before a jury? Surely it should be a matter for magistrates. Hopefull Cass will be able to comment once the sun shows its face in the new world.
As I understand it Criminal Damage is an offence that can be tried either way, in a Magistrates Court or a Crown Court based on the severity of the damage caused, a Magistrate can decide to either hear it or send it to the Crown Court, not certain but I believe the Defendant can ask to be tried in the Court Court .
Both defence and prosecution can object to Jurors if they wish but only so many,
Fairy snuff.
God only knows how they got off.
The fact that they did is a total and utter disgrace
Mike
We can now go out and deface anything we don't like or agree with, is that how it works? Where shall we go next? any ideas? lets all go on a wrecking spree. Anachy rules and we have a court ruling to prove it.
Actually I doubt it set any precedent. Plenty of obviously guilty fok have been acquitted of all sorts of crimes because a jury thought their actions were justified. What I find disturbing was that that happened here. A sure sign that the jury must have largely been millenials and wokistas. They wouldn't have been let off had I had a say - no question of guilt as they admitted that. Their plea being that their actions were justified. I wonder if I kicked every one of them up the arse I could get off on the same grounds.
No it does not what it says to me is the evidence was not strong enough to convict them, they won't be the first ones to be found not guilty of Criminal Damage or any other Criminal Offence
Evidence not strong enough? They were caught red handed, admitted their guilt, what other proof do you need?
Bristol has had a black mayor for some years. Why no campaign to have either: a) the statue removed, perhaps to a museum, or b) an informative plaque erected explaining how Colston made his fortune (slave trade, bad) and how he used the money (education, almshouses etc., good).
I'm pretty disgusted by the verdict.
The law is becoming a bigger Ass each day.
Next step now for the criminals, Churchill's statue.
Churchill will be as popular as Edward Colston in less than 50 years maybe sooner.
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 06, 2022, 09:40:21 AM
Jurors are selected at random
Yes, we like to think that's the case.
Quote from: klondike on January 06, 2022, 09:48:11 AM
The panel may be but sfaik the defence can reject some but that may only be in serious cases. My question here is why is a case of criminal damage being held before a jury? Surely it should be a matter for magistrates. Hopefull Cass will be able to comment once the sun shows its face in the new world.
Minor offences in which the maximum sentence is higher than that which can be imposed by a Magistrates' Court can be heard in either court.
It could be the case that the CPS expected that a guilty sentence would probably exceed the Magistrates' Court maximum available sentence.
It could be the case that the CPS decided on a Crown Court trial for the safety of local Magistrate
It could be the case that the CPS, for political reasons, decided that a Crown Court trial, before a jury, was the best chance of the defendants getting off & removing the chance of the Bristol riots that would have followed a guilty verdict.
We're all up shit creek again ...
Quote from: Cassandra on January 06, 2022, 02:42:10 PM
We're all up shit creek again ...
I reckon we have been for quite a while.
Help is at hand though...
(https://gallery.digitalham.co.uk/images/paddle_store.jpg)
Love it.
[2090] :rofl: [2090] :rofl:
And bugger me, I've recently subscribed to Netflix & they've just suggested I might like to watch a programme called Schitt's Creek.
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80036165
:shocked: :grin:
Quote from: Jacqueline on January 06, 2022, 12:27:44 PM
Churchill will be as popular as Edward Colston in less than 50 years maybe sooner.
It's quite possible, but for Churchill, these RRRRRholes would be in a concentration camp run by the New SS.
Quote from: Jacqueline on January 06, 2022, 10:55:27 AM
Evidence not strong enough? They were caught red handed, admitted their guilt, what other proof do you need?
You would have to ask the Jury their word is final, their defence brief must be very persuasive and good at his or her job
Quote from: Diasi on January 06, 2022, 12:48:03 PM
Yes, we like to think that's the case.
How are they selected then and who by?
Quote from: klondike on January 06, 2022, 03:36:30 PM
Help is at hand though...
(https://gallery.digitalham.co.uk/images/paddle_store.jpg)
:rofl:
Quote from: Diasi on January 06, 2022, 01:17:30 PM
Minor offences in which the maximum sentence is higher than that which can be imposed by a Magistrates' Court can be heard in either court.
It could be the case that the CPS expected that a guilty sentence would probably exceed the Magistrates' Court maximum available sentence.
It could be the case that the CPS decided on a Crown Court trial for the safety of local Magistrate
It could be the case that the CPS, for political reasons, decided that a Crown Court trial, before a jury, was the best chance of the defendants getting off & removing the chance of the Bristol riots that would have followed a guilty verdict.
Cassandra who is highly qualified and very experienced in Criminal Legislation may explain it to you and I in great detail and hopefully will, I as a layman will give you my humble offering and Cassandra can correct both of us if you or I have it wrong
There are certain Offences that can only be heard at a Magistrates Court, there are certain Offences that can only be heard at a Higher Court
There are Offences that can be tried either way either at a Magistrates Court or a Crown Court or higher e.g Central Criminal Court.
The CPS will only bring charges and put offenders before any Court if they think they have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.
The Magistrate based on the Offence if triable either way dictates at which Court the trial will be held not the CPS.
The starting grid for Crime is at a Magistrates Court where sentences are 'summary'. They are also limited to a maximum of 12 months and or fines, community labour etc. Generally they reflect the level of crimes directed to them, motoring, civil disorder etc. However in what we refer to as either way offences, as a hearing develops the bench may then refer some cases to a Crown Court to be tried, or sentenced. The accused at this point is either released on Conditional Bail, or retained in custody prior to either a new trial or sentencing if the punishment is above the lower houses remit. Judiciary here are two or three magistrates, or a Circuit Judge - not a Jury.
A Crown Court hears higher level crime such as Rape or Murder and usually has a Jury and a Judge. Here sentencing ranges from suspended, up to Life terms.
Appeals from this level (and Magistrates Courts) are then heard in the Chancery, Queens Bench and Family Divisions - three layers of the next tier known as 'The High Court' where decisions passed can be overturned, or increased.
Its worth pointing out that in the UK we have what is known as 'A Court of Equity', dating back to the 14th century in origination and 'jurisprudence'. This is where either no Statute law exists to cover a petition, so what is considered to be 'Fair and Reasonable' shall apply. Also where a ruling on proportional division amongst parties over such matters as equity division may be necessary. To be heard here within these instances an originating petition must be passed by the Lord Chancellor's Office.
After that and now finally (since Brexit) comes 'The Supreme Court' which is confined to Appeals on Points of Law only.
Summing up, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decides what will be prosecuted and what won't, based upon the strength of evidence bundled. They therefore decide to which level of court such prosecution will be referred. That is apart from petitions to the Chancery division within the categories I have mentioned above.
It is my sincerest hope that the Defendants in the 'Colston Statue' debacle will have their decision overturned in the High Court and upheld in the Supreme Court thereafter.
Lastly its a fact that all Crown Court Jurors are selected from the UK register by the Clerks to the regional location within which the case will be heard.
As Josef Stalin famously once said: "Its not the people who vote that count. Its the people who count the votes that count"
If, as they say over here - you get my drift!
Quote from: Cassandra on January 07, 2022, 06:31:28 PM
It is my sincerest hope that the Defendants in the 'Colston Statue' debacle will have their decision overturned in the High Court and upheld in the Supreme Court thereafter.
So. A chance that this nonsense can be righted. I wasn't aware that was possible. The verdict returned makes an ass of the jury system itself which is dangerous.
Quote from: klondike on January 07, 2022, 06:40:48 PM
So. A chance that this nonsense can be righted. I wasn't aware that was possible. The verdict returned makes an ass of the jury system itself which is dangerous.
Presently 'right now' under consideration with The Attorney General. This dangerous decision threatens the very structure of our Criminal Justice System. Neither Colston, nor his statue were on trial here. However four woke, idealistic individuals were for 'Criminal Damage' - recorded live on camera. They should have pleaded guilty and sought mitigation regarding his alleged 17th century actions -
not crimes in statute history. This 'Courts' decision has established a dangerous precent over future Civil Conflagration in the UK and must surely be reversed.
Quote from: Cassandra on January 07, 2022, 06:31:28 PM
The starting grid for Crime is at a Magistrates Court where sentences are 'summary'. They are also limited to a maximum of 12 months and or fines, community labour etc. Generally they reflect the level of crimes directed to them, motoring, civil disorder etc. However in what we refer to as either way offences, as a hearing develops the bench may then refer some cases to a Crown Court to be tried, or sentenced. The accused at this point is either released on Conditional Bail, or retained in custody prior to either a new trial or sentencing if the punishment is above the lower houses remit. Judiciary here are two or three magistrates, or a Circuit Judge - not a Jury.
A Crown Court hears higher level crime such as Rape or Murder and usually has a Jury and a Judge. Here sentencing ranges from suspended, up to Life terms.
Appeals from this level (and Magistrates Courts) are then heard in the Chancery, Queens Bench and Family Divisions - three layers of the next tier known as 'The High Court' where decisions passed can be overturned, or increased.
Its worth pointing out that in the UK we have what is known as 'A Court of Equity', dating back to the 14th century in origination and 'jurisprudence'. This is where either no Statute law exists to cover a petition, so what is considered to be 'Fair and Reasonable' shall apply. Also where a ruling on proportional division amongst parties over such matters as equity division may be necessary. To be heard here within these instances an originating petition must be passed by the Lord Chancellor's Office.
After that and now finally (since Brexit) comes 'The Supreme Court' which is confined to Appeals on Points of Law only.
Summing up, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) decides what will be prosecuted and what won't, based upon the strength of evidence bundled. They therefore decide to which level of court such prosecution will be referred. That is apart from petitions to the Chancery division within the categories I have mentioned above.
It is my sincerest hope that the Defendants in the 'Colston Statue' debacle will have their decision overturned in the High Court and upheld in the Supreme Court thereafter.
Lastly its a fact that all Crown Court Jurors are selected from the UK register by the Clerks to the regional location within which the case will be heard.
As Josef Stalin famously once said: "Its not the people who vote that count. Its the people who count the votes that count"
If, as they say over here - you get my drift!
Thank You for your expert knowledge
Quote from: klondike on January 07, 2022, 06:40:48 PM
So. A chance that this nonsense can be righted. I wasn't aware that was possible. The verdict returned makes an ass of the jury system itself which is dangerous.
Sadly it seems everywhere now whatever The Woke want, The Woke get. Now even justice itself is threatened.
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 07, 2022, 07:19:45 PM
Thank You for your expert knowledge
Thank you Walter, much appreciated. I tried not to present the thing without any 'whereby's' 'hereinafter referred to's' etc, or any latin pre or suffix's'
Quote from: Cassandra on January 07, 2022, 06:55:49 PM
Presently 'right now' under consideration with The Attorney General. This dangerous decision threatens the very structure of our Criminal Justice System. Neither Colston, nor his statue were on trial here. However four woke, idealistic individuals were for 'Criminal Damage' - recorded live on camera. They should have pleaded guilty and sought mitigation regarding his alleged 17th century actions - not crimes in statute history. This 'Courts' decision has established a dangerous precent over future Civil Conflagration in the UK and must surely be reversed.
I agree my opinion is the Judge allowed the trial to be undermined the four were guilty as charged by their own admissions and strengthen by the CCTV footage
Government Ministers as I understand it are now examining the Case to make changes to Legislations to try and repair the damage caused
Quote from: Cassandra on January 07, 2022, 07:25:16 PM
Thank you Walter, much appreciated. I tried not to present the thing without any 'whereby's' 'hereinafter referred to's' etc, or any latin pre or suffix's'
Being a Northerner I prefer plain speaking but done politely until someone really upsets me :grin:, I also learn from your posts
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 06, 2022, 09:40:21 AM
Jurors are selected at random
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 06, 2022, 07:09:53 PM
How are they selected then and who by?
That are selected exactly as Cassandra has said
from the UK register by the Clerks to the regional location within which the case will be heard..
But the selection for Jury service, or in my case non-selection for Jury service, is not always as random as you said they were.
I know I wanted to see if you knew
First time I have seen a legal opinion without the phrase ' best endeavours'.
Quote from: Diasi on January 07, 2022, 07:39:01 PM
That are selected exactly as Cassandra has said from the UK register by the Clerks to the regional location within which the case will be heard..
But the selection for Jury service, or in my case non-selection for Jury service, is not always as random as you said they were.
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 07, 2022, 08:05:29 PM
I know I wanted to see if you knew
Just for clarification, are you saying that you know that jury selection isn't always a random process?
Because that's what I'm saying.
I think I am right in saying that jury members can be questioned and rejected before the trial by the defence lawyers? So they could try and weed out anyone who seems less friendly to their cause? Have I got that right?
Quote from: Diasi on January 08, 2022, 08:53:48 AM
Just for clarification, are you saying that you know that jury selection isn't always a random process?
Because that's what I'm saying.
As I have posted earlier they " are selected at random "
A note on previous posts. There are 2 categories of checks that can be made on a jury member viz;
A Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check (formerly known as the CRB check), which is now automatically conducted on each juror to assess qualification against jury service criteria.
A further, more detailed check may be required in exceptional cases, which require authorised checks to provide further safeguards against the possibility of bias.
This is known as an 'Authorised Jury Check', which may involve a DBS check, Special Branch records check and sometimes a Security Services check. This may only be authorised by the Attorney General in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Jury Checks ("the AG's Guidelines").
Some details are leaking in this cause celebre it seems?
The Judge allowed the defence to present the jury with the proposition that there were no damages to contest as:
'Colston's' battered effigy is now worth far more now than it was, thanks to all the publicity it's received.
Of course we won't know anything more conclusive until the Judges Instructions to the Jury are made public.
Fortunately in 'Law' Jury Decisions, do not set Legal Precedents.
What they do establish is to set an exemplar with the Public, who are generally unaware of this 'legal nicety'. Especially 'Woke' vandals set to destroy what they like hereon in the name of their ideology. In my opinion a far more dangerous interpretation of view to enlarge conflagration generally by immediately distribution on Social Media and the BBC.
The 'Defence' counsel told the jury in his final address ."The eyes of the World will be watching your decision - make sure you get it right now".
Hopefully in the transcript he was made to withdraw it - but nonetheless it was heard by the Jury. Whilst the Defence normally indulges in explanative excesses from time to time it may reflect on the 'tone' in the courtroom generally.
Again thank you :smiley:
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 08, 2022, 05:57:18 PM
Again thank you :smiley:
Thank you Walter,
A little more: only The High Court (appeal) and The Supreme Court can create 'Precedents' - by their very rulings.
The decision in this case (being by Jury) can only be refuted on a 'Point of Law' by either the High Court or Supreme Court.
Is a moot point that was considered in Court. Namely as to whether causing a person to be offended to the point where their Human rights are violated (ECHR article 17 at least & probably a forest of others these days), by walking past a Bronze Statue.
The defendants chose to be heard by a Jury as was their right within the rulings of the ECHR.
It's really a fine 'point of law'. The 'defendants' admitted the act of 're-siting' Colston's statue into the neighbouring River. The 'Trial' was about whether the Statue just by being there since 1895 was causing injurious thoughts and feelings, and therefore in parallel violating the Human Rights of such people; due to it's subject's commercial activities 300 years ago?
Quote from: Wandering Walter on January 08, 2022, 12:16:23 PM
As I have posted earlier they " are selected at random "
Unless you're accquainted with the court officer who selects the jury & who puts you on his nod & a wink
'not be arsed with jury service' list.
Then the 'random' pin, miraculously, will never, randomly, hit your address.
You have a weird imagination
Here is how its done in the real world, feel free to disregard facts
The jury selection process - InBrief.co.uk
www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/
i just got a knock on the door and a copper handed me a summons to attend the Sheffield Assizes
my boss at work told me to just bring it into work and he would fix it, i declined his offer, and sat in the jury box for three days, i should have gone back to work thurs friday but thought ..erm.... nope, so i had the week off, and was quite surprised to get paid for the full week...
You must live in a rough tough area , the Postman delivers them down here :grin:
it was an area frequented by Gypo's,,, lol... but there was two little rows of cottages...Black Bank, Granny Mac... most folk didnt know there were houses there...
I had a summons for jury service some years back. Thankfully, I was over (well over) 65 so was able to decline, because there was no way I could leave Veronica alone all day.
Mike
I have never been called for Jury Service now due to age exempt :smiley: