The Colston Four

[feedthegoat27]

Jury was obviously sympathetic to their motives, nothing more than that but juries should take emotion out of it and decide purely on whether a crime was committed.

It doesn’t set a legal precedent but it may encourage others to think they can get away with it.

No problem with Colston’s statue being removed but should have been done by a poll, rather than a handful of protesters deciding to do it.

I think the people of Bristol had previously voted, more than once over the years, in the majority to have the statue removed but the council never acted on this or just dithered.
I'm not sure another poll would've worked (though it might have had more clout given the circumstances)

Dunking the **** in the drink most certainly did.

 

[Vic]

"We undermine the rule of law, which underpins our democracy, if we accept vandalism and criminal damage are acceptable forms of political protest. They aren’t. Regardless of the intentions."

Said Tory ex-minister Robert Jenrick, who wasn't charged with corruption after unlawfully helping out a Tory donor by approving his £40m development.

Tory MP Robert Jenrick claims court’s Colston statue verdict ‘undermines rule of law’

MP himself acted unlawfully by approving a £1bn luxury development for Conservative donor

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Vic]

Contemporary vernacular couldn’t be classified as archaic, surely?

If it was contemporary with Shakespeare, it could.

 

[Octavian]

I think the people of Bristol had previously voted, more than once over the years, in the majority to have the statue removed but the council never acted on this or just dithered.
I'm not sure another poll would've worked (though it might have had more clout given the circumstances)

Dunking the **** in the drink most certainly did.

I may be wrong but I thought there was a couple of petitions and a small movement to get it removed but never a significant poll.

Again, I could be wrong there.

 

[KS55]

Three really interesting lines of argument. There’s some seriously clever fuckers at the Bar…

Guessing that these arguments were what swayed the jury.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Only appears to have fallen out of usage in the middle of the last century, presumably at a time when it was being heard and read by the general public in popular media; was that perhaps a reason why it changed? I suppose its continued usage in society reflects how little contact there actually is between the laity and the professionals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milord

I think Rumpole of the Bailey has a lot to answer for!

 

[KS55]

I think Rumpole of the Bailey has a lot to answer for!

Leo McKern. Saw him at Heathrow once, pissed out of his head.

 

[bluethrunthru]

In my mind it gives future defence lawyers something to hang their hats on when the next criminal damage case goes to court.

Yes me lud, my client did smash up this statue, but was doing it as an anti racist protest.

Only for an objection to be raised by the prosecution and a judge to uphold it and to tell the defence to stop messing about and being silly buggers

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Guessing that these arguments were what swayed the jury.

Possibly, or maybe they’d already made their minds up. Advocacy is a marginal art. If someone has an entrenched view on something, the deployment of a silken tongue is highly unlikely to shift them from that. Of course there are large numbers of cases where people sit more readily in the middle, and can be persuaded one way or the other, but as this thread has suitably demonstrated, this is a subject upon which people hold strident views.

 

[blueinsa]

The world we now live in unfortunately.

Rewarding criminality and that’s what the jury has done here is not what we as a society should be doing.

 

[Vic]

This is the main precedent. But it was to stop a worse crime, whereas toppling Colston didn't stop slavery. Putting holes in one of Colston's ships in dock in Bristol would have, except slavery wasn't a crime.

pounds 1.5m Hawk attack women freed

Four women walked free from Liverpool Crown Court yesterday after a jury found them not guilty of criminal charges despite their admission that they did more than pounds 1.5m worth of damage to a Hawk warplane.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[meltonblue]

Possibly, or maybe they’d already made their minds up. Advocacy is a marginal art. If someone has an entrenched view on something, the deployment of a silken tongue is highly unlikely to shift them from that. Of course there are large numbers of cases where people sit more readily in the middle, and can be persuaded one way or the other, but as this thread has suitably demonstrated, this is a subject upon which people hold strident views.

Think this was always a likely outcome, particularly with it being held in Bristol.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Only for an objection to be raised by the prosecution and a judge to uphold it and to tell the defence to stop messing about and being silly buggers

Within certain bounds, a judge can’t really tell the defence how to run their case, no matter how ridiculous - and it’s certainly fuck all to do with the prosecution, assuming professional misconduct isn’t engaged.

 

[Vic]

And you don't always need a jury.

Conscientious objection and acquittal for alleged criminal damage | Law & Religion UK

lawandreligionuk.com

Supplying weapons to torturers and murderers, and bribing to get contracts, means BAe is the guilty party here.

It's quite encouraging to hope that if the Tories legislate against people shouting at protests, it might be hard to get a conviction.

 

[KS55]

Possibly, or maybe they’d already made their minds up. Advocacy is a marginal art. If someone has an entrenched view on something, the deployment of a silken tongue is highly unlikely to shift them from that. Of course there are large numbers of cases where people sit more readily in the middle, and can be persuaded one way or the other, but as this thread has suitably demonstrated, this is a subject upon which people hold strident views.

3 hours of deliberation when there were no facts in dispute and a majority verdict suggest some jurors at least wrangled over the defence argument.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Three really interesting lines of argument. There’s some seriously clever fuckers at the Bar…

True - the thicko's that just can't cut it become MP's and ministers lol

 

[bluethrunthru]

3 hours of deliberation when there were no facts in dispute and a majority verdict suggest some jurors at least wrangled over the defence argument.

It was an 11 - 1 verdict so only one juror not in agreement

 

[kaz7]

Good for them , i lived in bristol for a couple of years and everything coulson was despised , the council were asked year on year to remove the statue and they refused , in this case mob justice was fully warranted

 

[KS55]

It was an 11 - 1 verdict so only one juror not in agreement

Jurors are fickle creatures. Some even go along with the majority just to get out of there!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

3 hours of deliberation when there were no facts in dispute and a majority verdict suggest some jurors at least wrangled over the defence argument.

The three hours is a bit misleading. A majority verdict can’t be given until at least two hours and ten minutes have passed, and most likely it will have been a bit more than that. So, it may very well be the case that everyone had entrenched positions for a couple of hours, and it was clear no-one was going to budge, so a message was given the the Judge and he gave them the majority direction, upon which they came back with a verdict. Three hours, in a high profile case like this, is pretty quick tbf.