BLM protesters cleared over toppling of Edward Colston statue

Surely you know what I mean growstuff. Not a legally binding precedent but a precedent for people to act in a particular way and think they can get away with it. Which is what I think we will see happening.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are also those who offend far fewer, but very vociferous, people. As I said earlier, Churchill has been accused of having racist views, maybe not untypical of his time, and most see him as the man who steered us through WW2, but his statue has been attacked and has had to be protected. I’m looking at this in terms of populist rather than legal precedent.

And you're a former lawyer?

What's populist precedent?

Fortunately, the UK still has laws.

There are also those who offend far fewer, but very vociferous, people. As I said earlier, Churchill has been accused of having racist views, maybe not untypical of his time, and most see him as the man who steered us through WW2, but his statue has been attacked and has had to be protected. I’m looking at this in terms of populist rather than legal precedent.

There seems to be an assumption that this outcome will mean more destruction.

Is there a hope that this case might reduce destruction? Might now statues which cause near universal offence (because history has shown the subject worthy of contempt rather than idolisation) be removed without the need for desperate measures?

I'll put this here again as no-one is taking any notice of it.

This is not the first time that a jury has acquitted in a similar case, nor will it be the last.

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

I'll also repeat what others have said several times on this thread. This does not set any legal precedent

No, I have nothing to do with the law, but I follow several barristers and solicitors on SM and note what they are saying about the case.

There is not going to be a rash of statue depedimentisation across the UK. That's just hysterical claptrap.

trisher females are sadly under represented in the statue dept.Hopefully that will no longer be the case as we go forward.
Who would you like to nominate ( for a statue?)

Exactly GSM

lemongrove

There will be more statues defaced/ pulled down because of this verdict, and sooner rather than later.
BLM Extinction Rebellion and assorted groups will make sure of that.Then use the same legal arguments in court.

Ooh goody! Maybe we can put a few more statues of women up in their places! Women are sadly underrepresented at the moment and most of them are Victoria.

It’s nothing to do with understanding the jury system wwm, which I’m sure lemon and other posters do, it’s the message that the verdict sends out coupled with the victorious appearance of the defendants afterwards. I have no doubt that others will follow suit. Whether they are convicted and if so what punishment they receive is another matter.

lemongrove

There will be more statues defaced/ pulled down because of this verdict, and sooner rather than later.
BLM Extinction Rebellion and assorted groups will make sure of that.Then use the same legal arguments in court.

To argue that shows that you don’t understand the jury system.

If the defendant can put forward a convincing defence then yes they will be found not guilty.

Why shouldn’t they?

lemongrove

growstuff

So now you're advocating "trial by media"?

No, we have juries and this one made a decision based on legal arguments.

No.. so why twist words to say that?

The jury made a decision. That's the law of this land and their verdict shouldn't be challenged by media mob rule.

If you don't like the decision, maybe you should campaign to have the wording of the Criminal Damage Act changed.

Yet again ... this verdict doesn't set a precedent. Any defendant could use the same defence, whether or not this trial had happened.

I fear you’re right lemon. Without reading a full trial transcript, including all the arguments and the judge’s direction to the jury, it is difficult to understand how they came to believe that the defendants had lawful excuse for their actions. Years ago I would have read and digested it by now.

There will be more statues defaced/ pulled down because of this verdict, and sooner rather than later.
BLM Extinction Rebellion and assorted groups will make sure of that.Then use the same legal arguments in court.

growstuff

So now you're advocating "trial by media"?

No, we have juries and this one made a decision based on legal arguments.

No.. so why twist words to say that?

This jury didn't ignore evidence. It listened to the legal arguments and the majority decided that the defendants had a "lawful excuse".

So now you're advocating "trial by media"?

No, we have juries and this one made a decision based on legal arguments.

It isn’t just the red tops who are uneasy about this verdict, many people in the country are.
A jury trial for a criminal damage claim such as this could have saved time and money by being dealt with by a Magistrate.
Anyone who now defaces/ destroys statues or buildings can claim the same defence as the Bristol four, that it represents
A hate crime by just being there and that their cause is a just one.I know the law against damaging statues has now been beefed up, but another jury can decide to ignore evidence if they agree with the defendants.

They can't. Jury verdicts can't set legal precedents. Barristers might very well use the same Criminal Damage Act and the same (or similar) argument, but it hasn't set a precedent. Barristers could do the same with or without this trial.

Prosecutors might very well find a different reason to prosecute.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 nowhere in my posts have I indicated that I know more than jury.

I am just voicing my opinion…

Why do you think that was directed at yourself. I think it was more directed at those in the red tops who are leading the argument against juries and their right to decide on a verdict.

Just wanted to clarify my position Whitewavemark2 I would not like to see the Jury system dismantled in the U.K.

They came to their verdict, so unless there are grounds for a retrial, and I do not think there are, the verdict stays.

I can just see barristers using this case in the future when controversial buildings or statues are destroyed or defaced.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 nowhere in my posts have I indicated that I know more than jury.

I am just voicing my opinion…

Why do you think that was directed at yourself. I think it was more directed at those in the red tops who are leading the argument against juries and their right to decide on a verdict.

Whitewavemark2 nowhere in my posts have I indicated that I know more than jury.

I am just voicing my opinion…

That last post should be in parenthesis

?

This trial was a jury trial. Those people chosen to sit on that jury heard all the arguments. (As far as I can gather no GN member did). The prosecution framed it as a simple criminal damage case. The defence argued that it was about our national history of racism. It related and evidenced how the statue challenged our relationship with that history. The jury concluded this justified the pulling down of the statue of Colston.


How would those, currently arrogantly standing on their belief that they know more than the jury, look at a statue to a person who had forced their relatives into modern slavery? A person who had used the proceeds of the brutalisation of those relatives and friends to live a rich and powerful life while making sure their name went down in history by endowing good works. Since when did we allow the murder and maiming of others to be bought off? Those thinking they know more than the jury are driven by a superiority back by a lack of knowledge and an unwillingness to learn.

The defendants won their argument legally.

S.1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides:

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”

The defendants argued that they did have a lawful excuse and the majority of the jury agreed.