Dumb and Dumber

News from yesterday - the trial continues, both blaming either the other or persons unknown - for whatever reason, there are full reports from the court and people aren't being asked "not to discuss it"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1757x29lvro

Isn't the matter still sub judice? Perhaps we shouldn't discuss it at all until the trial is over.

They are also charged with damaging Hadrian’s Wall. If found guilty of that too, it would give the judge scope for non-concurrent sentencing.
If both crimes are linked any sentences could be concurrent.

Entering guilty pleas would have given the judge scope to pass shorter sentences. Their counsel will have explained all this.

Based on media reports about what happened in the immediate aftermath of the felling, it seems the defendants were very much enjoying the viral media coverage. Maybe entering not-guilty pleas is giving them the further thrill of a very public trial or, as I said before, they are going to be blaming one another.

I’ve been watching the BBC series. Expert Witness. When there is more than one perpetrator of a crime, the severity of the sentencing often hinges on who did what and what the chain of events leading to the crime was, something that can be established by forensic specialists.

I can’t see them being found not guilty of the tree felling other than on some unforeseen technicality. The maximum sentence for criminal damage (that does not involve arson) is ten years. They are also charged with damaging Hadrian’s Wall. If found guilty of that too, it would give the judge scope for non-concurrent sentencing.

I felt that a trial was ill advised for the defendants also, as it exposed them to further public exposure. A sentencing would have been a shorter event, possibly attracting less media interest.

Chocolatelovinggran

Golly MaizieD that was a little unpleasant.
Of course I do not want to ignore the rule of law. My family includes solicitors and barristers.
I wondered merely whether the defence might have been able to suggest to them, in view of the strength of the evidence, that a guilty plea might be better for them- and us.

The implication of your post was that they were so obviously guilty that a trial was a waste of money.

If that wasn’t what you were saying perhaps it could have been phrased better. Indignation, perhaps that this pair of mindless vandals are costing the state so much money?

Regarding the not guilty plea, as I understand it the defence barrister can give advice, even strong advice, on the plea but the defendant is not obliged to take it.

It's generally illegal to handle wild birds in the UK.

The Daily Mail yesterday had a photograph of Adam Carruthers standing in a barn holding two baby owls. I wonder where they'd come from and what he was up to with them? It's illegale t

Snap Allira! Quite staggering isn't it?

No, not at all Allira; definitely "all types of groundwork"; which makes it all the more baffling if he did cut a perfectly healthy tree. Interestingly, he lists an extensive range of equipment that he has for groundwork; one of which is large chainsaws.

I just had a look, Carlotta
It's a Ground Work's (sic) company - slabs, concrete and Artificial grass cleaning. Machine washes and makes grass look new again.

How did I guess? 🤔

Landscaping business??
He doesn't have an aesthetic bone in his body. Perhaps it means he lays paving slabs and artificial grass.

Someone's woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning haven't they? Such a venomous response to an innocent post; says much about that poster.

I was looking at the facebook page for one of the defendant's landscaping business yesterday and he seems to have had an excellent, highly recommended business. No matter the outcome of the trial; it's unlikely he'll recover his reputation. So much destruction caused in just a few minutes.

Yes Allira I really think they are now blaming each other. I wonder what their families think of them - if they have any!

I'm afraid I want to understand why - but don't think I ever will.

Golly MaizieD that was a little unpleasant.
Of course I do not want to ignore the rule of law. My family includes solicitors and barristers.
I wondered merely whether the defence might have been able to suggest to them, in view of the strength of the evidence, that a guilty plea might be better for them- and us.

Carruthers and Graham were once good friends, the jury was told, but not now. That once close friendship has seemingly completely unravelled, perhaps as the public revulsion at their behaviour became clear to them, … each man may now be trying to blame the other.
They really are quite dim, aren't they.

As for community service, if found guilty of criminal damage, perhaps ten years of strictly supervised tree planting might be appropriate.

When and if they are found guilty, I hope they throw the book at both of them!

This should also apply to companies/persons who take down any ancient trees without permission.

Indeed.

Pleading not guilty means that you say you didn’t do the crime … or that you did, but you had an excuse which the law recognises as a defence.

It will be interesting to hear that the defence is. From what I have read, it seems the two men are going to blame one another - presumably in the hope that one will get a lesser sentence.

Prosecutor Richard Wright KC:

Carruthers and Graham were once good friends, the jury was told, but not now. That once close friendship has seemingly completely unravelled, perhaps as the public revulsion at their behaviour became clear to them, … each man may now be trying to blame the other.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/29/two-men-felled-sycamore-gap-tree-mindless-criminal-damage-court-told

Of course it’s a sharp response.

We’re watching, mostly utterly horrified, Trump ignoring the rule of law in the US and at the same time here are Gnetters apparently oblivious to the absolute necessity of its observance.

Simplistic notions of ‘common sense’ endanger everyone’s access to the law.

Well that's quite a sharp response.
There is something in what Chocolatelovinggran says though isn't there?
Someone filmed themselves breaking the law. The film is available to view.
How much process is required?
What 'due process' is required to persuade of the evidence available before your eyes?
Should there be some sort of new process now the world has moved on?

Chocolatelovinggran

Yes, I understand that they filmed the event and took a " trophy" How can it be, then, that we are funding a trial?

What an absurd question.

Do you want to destroy the rule of law?

The principle is ‘innocence until proven guilty’. Guilt can only be legally proved by means of a properly held trial. ‘Due process’.

Think about it…

I believe that trials cost around £3K a day

Yes, I understand that they filmed the event and took a " trophy" How can it be, then, that we are funding a trial?

Why just WHY !

Throw them in prison. Not community service , too easy , not a punishment.