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.

 

[Octavian]

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.

 

[meltonblue]

For anyone interested in the defence argument -

Edward Colston statue toppling trial - Liam Walker represents acquitted defendant | Doughty Street Chambers

Liam Walker appeared for Sage Willoughby who was tried in Bristol Crown Court, along with 3 others, for pulling down and da

www.doughtystreet.co.uk

There’s already (unsurprisingly) so much commentary from some that really should know better (Buckland being an example).

 

[west didsblue]

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.

Guilty with a 1p fine would have made more sense and also made the point that having statues of slave traders is not a particularly great idea.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

The Luddites like this post.

 

[give it to gordon]

This country all over ! They were guilty, they pulled down a statue they didnt like.

Same with graffiti I do it its classed as graffiti Banksy does it its art !

 

[Tuearts right boot]

This country all over ! They were guilty, they pulled down a statue they didnt like.

Same with graffiti I do it its classed as graffiti Banksy does it its art !

and Robin Hood, he is now an out law, Rashford gets an MBE.

 

[sir baconface]

A more fitting outcome would have been guilty of criminal damage (which was blatant) but with a lenient punishment. That would have reasonably served all parties.

As it is, the law has clearly been twisted by the jury to suit their own values/beliefs.

 

[meeesh]

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

Now there's an idea

 

[Gabriel]

Nobody says ‘me lud’. It’s ‘My Lord’.

Interesting. Oddly enough it still appears in English dictionaries and isn’t noted as archaic.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/lud

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

I suppose the defence successfully put Colston on trial rather than the actions of the defendants to some extent? I think guilty but with no or a suspended sentence would be better in this case, but we have to accept the jury system for better or worse. Is it the fault of the presiding judge that he didn't brief them properly - ie they were there to decide if the defendants caused criminal damage or not.