Palestine Action

[Pingu the Penguin]

Imagining arguing your point in court. I vandalised a military aircraft, smashed somebodies spine causing them a bad injury and smashed up a building causing damage. This is not protest.

And no I haven't done anything to protest Israel's genocide because there is no qualifying requirement of agreement or disagreement that I must protest Israel's genocide.

I can say that I disagree with what Israel is doing and leave it at that. We know full well what is the right thing to do because we subscribe to a system of law which exists to give context to what is right and wrong.

With this system the Palestinian Action protesters will have their day in court and hopefully so will Netanyahu.

This might help further the discussion.

“Information that prosecutors may need from the police in order to decide whether the exceptions to bail are made out may include:

Any history of offending, absconding or witness interference whilst on bail in the current or in previous proceedings;
Any express or implied intention to continue to offend, abscond or interfere with the course of justice and any apparent motive for doing so (for example, to obtain money for the purpose of drug purchases);

The extent to which the defendant has continued to offend whilst subject to other orders of the Court, such as suspended or deferred sentences and conditional discharge, and any relevant breach proceedings in respect of other sentences as the presence of one or more of the features may demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to comply with other orders of the Court such as bail conditions;

Any previous breaches of bail conditions in earlier or concurrent proceedings or a history of absconding and failing to surrender to custody;

Any evidence of violence or threats towards or undue influence over the victim of the crime, or other vulnerable witnesses;
The degree of temptation to abscond. It should be noted that the risk of failing to surrender owing to the severity of the likely sentence, if convicted was a matter to be assessed in the light of other relevant factors. The likely sentence could not of itself provide grounds for a remand in custody (R (Thompson) v Central Criminal Court [2006] A.C. 9);

Any factors that could increase the risk that the defendant may fail to surrender to the court such as links to other jurisdictions, for example family, friends and/or assets including properties. It may be appropriate to consider a defendant’s travel history in this context. Prosecutors should also consider whether the relevant jurisdiction has an extradition agreement with the UK and in particular, those that will not extradite their own nationals to the UK. However, it should not be assumed that bail will be inappropriate by virtue of a defendant’s links with a particular overseas jurisdiction. Prosecutors should consider the seriousness of the offending, the strength of the links to the other jurisdiction(s) compared to the defendant’s links to the UK, and assess the risk of failure to surrender on a case by case basis.

Any factors which might affect the defendant’s ability to comply with bail conditions, such as drug or alcohol dependency. Care must be taken, however, with mentally disordered offenders to ensure that the risks of the future events are reduced in a way most compatible with their proper care and treatment (for example by diversion to a recognised medical treatment scheme or by a remand on bail to an appropriate probation or medical facility); and

The effect that the seriousness of the proceedings and the likely penalty of conviction may have upon the defendant. Generally speaking, the more serious the offence and the higher the likely penalty, the stronger will be the need to guard against one of the future risks.”

Bail | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Without knowing the specifics about the offenders it is difficult to tell but risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges probably enough to deny bail. Any previous for offending while on bail might also have been relevant

 

[Vic]

Imagining arguing your point in court. I vandalised a military aircraft, smashed somebodies spine causing them a bad injury and smashed up a building causing damage. This is not protest.

And no I haven't done anything to protest Israel's genocide because there is no qualifying requirement of agreement or disagreement that I must protest Israel's genocide.

I can say that I disagree with what Israel is doing and leave it at that. We know full well what is the right thing to do because we subscribe to a system of law which exists to give context to what is right and wrong.

With this system the Palestinian Action protesters will have their day in court and hopefully so will Netanyahu.

Leaving aside the use of violence against a person, the defendants will exactly that damaging Israeli equipment used on a genocide is justifiable.

I can't be bothered keeping up with your shifting argument.

Like your reliance on law means they are being treated as terrorists because of a retrospective law. And while they will get their day in court they are currently detained without trial, and there are laws against that.

I'm gratified to learn you're against what Israel is doing. You know what good men doing nothing means for preventing evil. It enables it.

 

[Vic]

This might help further the discussion.

“Information that prosecutors may need from the police in order to decide whether the exceptions to bail are made out may include:

Any history of offending, absconding or witness interference whilst on bail in the current or in previous proceedings;
Any express or implied intention to continue to offend, abscond or interfere with the course of justice and any apparent motive for doing so (for example, to obtain money for the purpose of drug purchases);

The extent to which the defendant has continued to offend whilst subject to other orders of the Court, such as suspended or deferred sentences and conditional discharge, and any relevant breach proceedings in respect of other sentences as the presence of one or more of the features may demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to comply with other orders of the Court such as bail conditions;

Any previous breaches of bail conditions in earlier or concurrent proceedings or a history of absconding and failing to surrender to custody;

Any evidence of violence or threats towards or undue influence over the victim of the crime, or other vulnerable witnesses;
The degree of temptation to abscond. It should be noted that the risk of failing to surrender owing to the severity of the likely sentence, if convicted was a matter to be assessed in the light of other relevant factors. The likely sentence could not of itself provide grounds for a remand in custody (R (Thompson) v Central Criminal Court [2006] A.C. 9);

Any factors that could increase the risk that the defendant may fail to surrender to the court such as links to other jurisdictions, for example family, friends and/or assets including properties. It may be appropriate to consider a defendant’s travel history in this context. Prosecutors should also consider whether the relevant jurisdiction has an extradition agreement with the UK and in particular, those that will not extradite their own nationals to the UK. However, it should not be assumed that bail will be inappropriate by virtue of a defendant’s links with a particular overseas jurisdiction. Prosecutors should consider the seriousness of the offending, the strength of the links to the other jurisdiction(s) compared to the defendant’s links to the UK, and assess the risk of failure to surrender on a case by case basis.

Any factors which might affect the defendant’s ability to comply with bail conditions, such as drug or alcohol dependency. Care must be taken, however, with mentally disordered offenders to ensure that the risks of the future events are reduced in a way most compatible with their proper care and treatment (for example by diversion to a recognised medical treatment scheme or by a remand on bail to an appropriate probation or medical facility); and

The effect that the seriousness of the proceedings and the likely penalty of conviction may have upon the defendant. Generally speaking, the more serious the offence and the higher the likely penalty, the stronger will be the need to guard against one of the future risks.”

Bail | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Without knowing the specifics about the offenders it is difficult to tell but risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges probably enough to deny bail. Any previous for offending while on bail might also have been relevant

I'd read all that before I started discussing it (with people who obviously hadn't). But neither you nor they nor I seem to be able to find out why bail has been denied. Justice does not seem to be being seen to be done. Given the time to trial, it looks rather like sentence first then verdict.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I'd read all that before I started discussing it (with people who obviously hadn't). But neither you nor they nor I seem to be able to find out why bail has been denied. Justice does not seem to be being seen to be done. Given the time to trial, it looks rather like sentence first then verdict.

Who ever was sat in court would know I guess. Given the specific offences I don’t smell a rat as much as you do though.