Colston Statue

[Cassandra]

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.

[Wandering Walter]

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

[Cassandra]

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.

[Cassandra]

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'

[Wandering Walter]

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       

[Wandering Walter]

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  , I also learn from your posts   

[Diasi]

Jurors are selected at random     

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.

[Wandering Walter]

I know I wanted to see if you knew

[1955vintage]

First time I have seen a legal opinion without the phrase ' best endeavours'.

[Diasi]

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

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.

[Jacqueline]

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?

[Wandering Walter]

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 " 

[Cassandra]

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.

[Wandering Walter]

Again thank you 

[Cassandra]

Again thank you 

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?