The Colston Four

Fode N The Hole said:
What are their facilities like?

www.theguardian.com

New trial for Black man whose all-white jury met in room with Confederate symbols

Tim Gilbert was convicted in Tennessee by a panel which met in a room maintained by a Confederate heritage group
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
The café is quite nice. impressive building too.

Worcester - burglary = conviction
Stoke - assault = acquittal
Hereford - incest = acquittal and puzzled look from the jury when it’s explained to them that it’s a criminal offence.
 
It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also ava to defendants.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

Yep. I posted it earlier but the judges legal directions are worth a lot of people reading, think it’s summed up excellently.

barristerblogger.com

Colston summing up: those legal directions in full

Below is the full text of the legal directions given to the Colston 4 jury by the Recorder of Bristol, HHJ Peter Blair QC. Unfortunately some of the formatting has been unavoidably altered, but no…
barristerblogger.com
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.

Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.

This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

Very good post. I think a lot of people who took offence to this have a very simplistic moral code, which essentially basically boils down to one rule: people caught in the act ought to be punished.

But as you allude to that doesn't stand up to wider knowledge of the law (in general) and full consideration of the issues.

There have to be exceptions to that rule otherwise the law would create peverse and inequitable verdicts far more regularly than jury nullification does.

Although some others may simply have:

"OFFENSIVE WORD REDACTED Tendencies"
 
Just spoke to my Dad - had to explain to him how it wasn't a judge that found them not guilty and that it was a jury trial.....
 
Thanks for putting the Judge's summing up out there. I didn't need to read too much to find that the verdict was entirely reasonable, based on my limited knowledge of events. Not surprised that the Govt. is going to appeal. Very normal for the bunch of wierdos we have in power, lead by the vast brain power of Suella Braverrman, Attorney General; right winger with extensive experience of criminal planning law.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
.... Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence.... In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.

So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.
Click to expand...
Liar Johnson wants to hire you as his solicitor when he makes his statement to the Met about bringing down statutes in his garden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top