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.

 

[Vic]

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.

I'm now ploughing through a detailed account of the trial. This is just a quick comment as it's nearly match time.

It's selective - but so it seems was the police compilation of video evidence.

First, the most serious injuries were caused by one of the security guards (ex-soldier with martial arts training), and this:
"Next was some medical evidence about Acting Police Sergeant Kate Evans, which turned out to be somewhat less dramatic than described by the corporate and state media last week. The first report was from the hospital admission where she walked in slowly but evenly and unaided. An X-ray scan showed no obvious acute injury, but a radiologist’s report some days later reported a small fracture to the bony projection at the side of a vertebra, not requiring surgery. Ms Evans was advised to take pain medication if necessary while it healed. In ensuing physiotherapy Ms Evans complained of pain and occasional numbness and other symptoms, she was given an MRI scan a few months later which showed no bony injury or spinal compression. In the months leading up to trial the CPS ordered a report by an orthopaedic specialist who re-examined the scans and gave an opinion that Ms Evans had sustained a fracture to the side of her vertebra typical of a medium to severe blow or a motor accident or a fall, expected to heal in 3- 6 weeks, with full recovery in 3-6 months and no long-term consequences."

(Which isn't to say she might not have suffered more serious injuries.)

And suppression by the judge of evidence of motive:

"Mr. Menon (defence barrister) then asked what she (Ms Head) had been told about the Elbit Systems company. The judge interrupted, saying that ‘we may need a discussion if you’re moving into this territory, talking about the history of the Middle East or the role of Elbit.’

Mr. Menon replied that he was just asking about the company that she had targeted and that this would be directly relevant to her state of mind and intent. Judge Johnson insisted that if the barrister wished to discuss this now, he’d have to ask the jury to leave."

So the jury is prevented from hearing why Elbit was targeted.



And I still can't see why bail is denied...

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I'm now ploughing through a detailed account of the trial. This is just a quick comment as it's nearly match time.

It's selective - but so it seems was the police compilation of video evidence.

First, the most serious injuries were caused by one of the security guards (ex-soldier with martial arts training), and this:
"Next was some medical evidence about Acting Police Sergeant Kate Evans, which turned out to be somewhat less dramatic than described by the corporate and state media last week. The first report was from the hospital admission where she walked in slowly but evenly and unaided. An X-ray scan showed no obvious acute injury, but a radiologist’s report some days later reported a small fracture to the bony projection at the side of a vertebra, not requiring surgery. Ms Evans was advised to take pain medication if necessary while it healed. In ensuing physiotherapy Ms Evans complained of pain and occasional numbness and other symptoms, she was given an MRI scan a few months later which showed no bony injury or spinal compression. In the months leading up to trial the CPS ordered a report by an orthopaedic specialist who re-examined the scans and gave an opinion that Ms Evans had sustained a fracture to the side of her vertebra typical of a medium to severe blow or a motor accident or a fall, expected to heal in 3- 6 weeks, with full recovery in 3-6 months and no long-term consequences."

(Which isn't to say she might not have suffered more serious injuries.)

And suppression by the judge of evidence of motive:

"Mr. Menon (defence barrister) then asked what she (Ms Head) had been told about the Elbit Systems company. The judge interrupted, saying that ‘we may need a discussion if you’re moving into this territory, talking about the history of the Middle East or the role of Elbit.’

Mr. Menon replied that he was just asking about the company that she had targeted and that this would be directly relevant to her state of mind and intent. Judge Johnson insisted that if the barrister wished to discuss this now, he’d have to ask the jury to leave."

So the jury is prevented from hearing why Elbit was targeted.



And I still can't see why bail is denied...

You might want to go back to the early court appearances in 2024 for info on bail, as when it was originally applied for and turned down will be the most instructive. What you have set out above is presumably trial reports.

Although a right to apply for bail arises at subsequent court hearings unless there has been a change in circumstances the decision is likely to be maintained, in practice.

Here’s an example of why one of the accused has been refused bail.
He is alleged to have committed this offence whilst he was already on bail for other matters (risk of reoffending risk). Whether you agree with it or not, that is always likely to lead to bail being denied.

UK court denies bail for Palestine Action activist to care for ill mother

RAF Brize Norton suspect Muhammad Umer Khalid is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage

www.middleeasteye.net

Enjoy the game.

 

[Vic]

You might want to go back to the early court appearances in 2024 for info on bail, as when it was originally applied for and turned down will be the most instructive. What you have set out above is presumably trial reports.

Although a right to apply for bail arises at subsequent court hearings unless there has been a change in circumstances the decision is likely to be maintained, in practice.

Here’s an example of why one of the accused has been refused bail.
He is alleged to have committed this offence whilst he was already on bail for other matters (risk of reoffending risk). Whether you agree with it or not, that is always likely to lead to bail being denied.

UK court denies bail for Palestine Action activist to care for ill mother

RAF Brize Norton suspect Muhammad Umer Khalid is charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage

www.middleeasteye.net

Enjoy the game.

I did, thanks.

I'm a bit confused about who the "alleged victim" is.

So Khalid was on police bail for previous peaceful protests for which he wasn't charged, and now remanded in custody on conspiracy charges (conspiracy usually means lack of actual direct evidence), and he's at risk of leaving the country on an expired Italian passport. I can't even leave the country on a valid UK passport because it was issued more than ten years ago.

It's sounding more and more like detention without trial of political prisoners (or at least of prisoners for political reasons).

 

[Winchester]

Jail the lot of them

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I did, thanks.

I'm a bit confused about who the "alleged victim" is.

So Khalid was on police bail for previous peaceful protests for which he wasn't charged, and now remanded in custody on conspiracy charges (conspiracy usually means lack of actual direct evidence), and he's at risk of leaving the country on an expired Italian passport. I can't even leave the country on a valid UK passport because it was issued more than ten years ago.

It's sounding more and more like detention without trial of political prisoners (or at least of prisoners for political reasons).

It is one possible interpretation I’m sure

 

[abu13]

Jail the lot of them

Yep, no time for them or their hate marches.

 

[BlueMoonday]

Yep, no time for them or their hate marches.

An excuse for them to practice antisemitism and intimidate Jewish folk.