The Colston Four

[mosssideblue]

The courts decision to aquit sets an unhealthy precedent.

The charge was criminal damage and they were bang to rights.

Seen vandalising on tv, admitted to playing a part, yet got off claiming they were protesting against racism.

This now gives protestors an open door to break the law. No wonder the country is deteriorating.

 

[hilts]

Odd decision which has happened before I believe. Leniency should go with the sentence not the verdict. I heard it was Jury which makes more sense.

 

[Del_Bosque]

I think they have already changed the law regarding taking down statues etc

 

[MCFCTrick]

Irrespective of their motives, if their actions aren't the very essence of 'criminal damage' then I have no idea what is?

 

[meeesh]

In other words,you can do what the fuck you want

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The courts decision to aquit sets an unhealthy precedent.

The charge was criminal damage and they were bang to rights.

Seen vandalising on tv, admitted to playing a part, yet got off claiming they were protesting against racism.

This now gives protestors an open door to break the law. No wonder the country is deteriorating.

It’s not a precedent, it’s a jury verdict. Sometimes juries return verdicts against the weight of the evidence and/or the law. The decision rests entirely with them; they have the power - but it doesn’t set any legal precedent, although it may lead legislators to close any loopholes that may have been exposed.

I expect the verdict is politically motivated (not using the term pejoratively). The fact is was a majority verdict supports this suggestion.

It’s been a while, but iirc there are some statutory defences to criminal damage, as well as common law defences to crimes more widely such as duress and necessity. Not sure whether any of them were deployed by the defence.

 

[manchester blue]

In other words,you can do what the fuck you want

I’m not keen on those outside Old Trafford. I find them incredibly offensive…

 

[mosssideblue]

It’s not a precedent, it’s a jury verdict. Sometimes juries return verdicts against the weight of the evidence and/or the law. The decision rests entirely with them; they have the power - but it doesn’t set any legal precedent, although it may lead legislators to close any loopholes that may have been exposed.

I expect the verdict is politically motivated (not using the term pejoratively). The fact is was a majority verdict supports this suggestion.

It’s been a while, but iirc there are some statutory defences to criminal damage, as well as common law defences to crimes more widely such as duress and necessity. Not sure whether any of them were deployed by the defence.

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.

 

[youngbob]

First they came for the statues.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

Nobody says ‘me lud’. It’s ‘My Lord’.

Do you think England Test Matches are played at Luds?

99% of criminal damage cases are tried in the Magistrates’ Court and good luck to anyone running that defence in front of three Mags! The only defence lawyer who would do so in virtually every instance is a sinfully shit one.