Ricky Jones

A better explanation than mine:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ricky-jones-cleared-lucy-connolly-jailed-b2808629.html

growstuff

sundowngirl

I understand that in his summing up, the judge can sometimes lead the jury. Perhaps this happened in this case, as many of our judges seem to be operating a two tier justice system

That's speculation and the suggestion that there is a two tier justice system is nonsense.

It’s also a distortion, suggesting theczjudgrbcan sometimes lead the jury. In her/his summing up the Judge sets out the law. For example, in a case of child sexual abuse, the Judge will remind the jury of the need for corroborative evidence. All too often, there is nine and a not guilty finding results.

Devastating imo, but that isn’t the judge leading the jury.

I agree Iam64. In my experience of being on a jury (admittedly only once) the judge reminded us of points of law, but didn't direct us. My partner was on a jury very recently and he said the judge did the same. That's fair enough because juries don't usually have legal training and have to follow the law rather than their emotions.

It's always worth remembering that people are innocent until proved guilty in the eyes of the law - rightly so, IMO. Somebody could be the most odious person on the planet, but it doesn't mean he/she is guilty. If juries convicted according to gut reactions, we really would be in a mess.

I've tried to find out more details of the Ricky Jones case, but there don't seem to be any transcripts. It would appear that he was charged with encouraging violent disorder. His comment was certainly nasty, but there wasn't any violent disorder, so he can't have encouraged it. The full video shows that he was talking about the National Front stickers with razor blades which had been stuck on the inside of trains. The idea was that people would cut themselves if they tried to remove the stickers. Understandably, he was outraged - it's a horrible tactic - and he claimed he was speaking in the heat of the moment. Personally, I don't think a person with any kind of responsibility should have used that language (which he acknowledged) but he wasn't charged with that. Maybe there should also have been a lesser charge, of which he might have been found guilty. He produced other evidence that what he said was out of character.

Whatever the reasoning of the jury, it's dangerous territory once people start questioning juries. They, after all, are representatives of the people. In effect, a group of people who don't like the verdict are challenging the "people". Ironically, this is the same group of people who claim to be representing the "people". Maybe people who support this group should question which "people" they're actually representing - it's obviously not all people, but just a small group of them.

Lucy Connolly's case was different. She pled guilty, so the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines. There were some mitigating circumstances, but her other tweets showed that she was not acting out of character and she even reinforced what she had written. Her tweet was seen and there was action, which was probably encouraged by her tweet.

It is helpful moving forward in terms of what people should do when faced with charges relating to speech, must plead not guilty and get decent advice.

growstuff

Jane43

Jaberwok

Pleading guilty you will obviously be found guilty, but surely the punishment far exceeds the crime? The lady withdrew her comment and apologised immediately. Six months suspended would have been more appropriate, a fine, or both; community service perhaps? But 2 1/2 years in prison is excessive in the extreme. This alone could cost Labour the next election, never mind migration!

I thought that way until I read the Judge’s comments on the case, there were numerous instances of racist posts on Twitter and other social media platforms, it was not a one off tweet. She joked that if the police came after her she would play the mental health card. How could it cost Labour the next election, the CPS decides whether or not to prosecute and there are sentencing guidelines to assist when sentencing.

Yes, that's my understanding too. It wasn't a one-off tweet, although she withdrew it after a few hours when she realised the reaction. Other tweets showed that it wasn't just a momentary over-reaction - it reflected her genuinely held beliefs. The follow-up tweets about intending to play the mental health card were also taken as evidence that she knew exactly what she was writing. The appeal failed because there was no evidence of mental illness or lack of intelligence. The verdict stood that Lucy Connolly knew exactly what she was writing, meant it, but thought she might be able to squirm out of being found guilty by claiming mental illness. There was also the issue that her tweet had been seen by thousands of people before it was withdrawn, including by somebody who had retweeted it and had already been sentenced. Crucially, there had been attempts to burn down buildings with people in them and the tweet could have encouraged that.

FWIW I think Lucy Connolly's sentence was fair - she pleaded guilty, so there was no question of her innocence. Arguably, she was badly advised and should not have admitted guilt and should have pushed for a jury trial. IMO Ricky Jones was also guilty, but the jury decided otherwise - I don't know enough details about the defence case to know how that verdict was decided.

In both cases the proper legal systems were used, so talk of "two tier" justice is nonsense. The UK legal system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have and at least there are some safeguards built into it. At least we don't have lynching or execution based on emotional reactions (although I think some people like it). The twitter storm caused by the Ricky Jones case is once again mostly lies and racist.

A very sensible post growstuff, my work often takes me into courts and the number of times I've seen distorted and totally inaccurate posts about cases on local social media is actually quite horrifying.

I'd highly recommend looking at this for explanations around cases;
thesecretbarrister.com

Galaxy

It is helpful moving forward in terms of what people should do when faced with charges relating to speech, must plead not guilty and get decent advice.

Yes, they should most definitely.

Nevertheless, I've watched the unedited version of the Ricky Jones video and I honestly think he wasn't guilty of the charge. It's absolutely clear he's speaking about the stickers with razor blades and the National Front. He also makes it clear he's speaking as a union official and his members had to remove the stickers and blades, which was dangerous.

He's extremely emotional and I honestly think he should have been more careful about what he said as he's a councillor. he's probably not the most cerebral of people. However, he did admit that he spoke unwisely and there's no evidence he's ever said anything else like that.

His target was the National Front and no violent disorder followed.

On the basis of the evidence (as I know it), I think the jury made the right decision.

The jury didn't make any decision on the Lucy Connolly case. The Free Speech Union has worked with Connolly and funded her appeal, which she lost.

Dee1012 The influence of social media concerns me greatly.

growstuff

Dee1012 The influence of social media concerns me greatly.

growstuff, I totally agree with you.

Especially when a video is posted which will show part of an incident, usually the most inflammatory section.

The stickers allegations were used to silence feminists it wasn't true then, however
I don't care who he talking about. Would it have been ok for feminists to use his phrase when activists were waving decapitate terfs sign.
Connolly plead guilty that was the mistake. The fsu were successful in some of the other southport cases.
If Jones is representative of the good guys thank god I am not part of it.

No, I don't think Jones is a "good guy" at all. I don't think in black/white good/bad terms. I try to be objective and that often makes me somewhat grey.

Feminists and terfs are irrelevant to the Jones case. I haven't actually read a transcript of his defence, so I'm only going on the reporting of the people who attended the trial. It appears that part of his defence was that he was angry that his union members were being put in danger by having to remove the razor blades. He certainly appeared angry/emotional in the video.

Are you saying that he should have been denied his right to free speech?

No i agree with the verdict but I disagreed with the LC verdict. My view on speech applies to those I loathe as well.

I mean I disagreed that she should be in prison for her speech so the sentence rather than the verdict, she should have gone for a not guilty plea.

If LC had pleaded not guilty, gone to trial and been found guilty, her sentence would have been longer. It’s possible counsel advising her reviewed all the evidence that would have been used at trial and advised her accordingly.

Galaxy

I mean I disagreed that she should be in prison for her speech so the sentence rather than the verdict, she should have gone for a not guilty plea.

I think she probably should have done too. She was badly advised, but also lost her appeal, when she was being better advised. Nevertheless, I do think the case against her was quite strong. There was more to her case than the single tweet and IMO it did incite actual violence and racial hatred, which needs to be protected too. She isn't just the quiet, unassuming mum she's been portrayed as being.

Iam64

If LC had pleaded not guilty, gone to trial and been found guilty, her sentence would have been longer. It’s possible counsel advising her reviewed all the evidence that would have been used at trial and advised her accordingly.

There would always have been that possibility. Given her charge, it would have been difficult to find her not guilty. Her counsel would have had all the evidence and known the law better than most of us on GN do.

Galaxy

No i agree with the verdict but I disagreed with the LC verdict. My view on speech applies to those I loathe as well.

There wasn't a LC verdict - she pled guilty, so no verdict by any judge or jury.

Yes i corrected my phrasing in my second post.