BoroFur
Well-known member
It would be interesting to find out if the CPS intend to appeal the verdict but even that wouldn't be in the public interest.
Edward Colston
- Thread starter FatCat
- Start date
Lefty
Well-known member
I just saw a lawyer state the CPS can't appeal. The same lawyer predicted the outcome.
An interesting point he makes is that if the statue had been a listed building then they wouldn't have had a defence. Stand by for a raft of Churchill statues and the like being given listed status by this Conservative back bench CRG led Government.
Scrote
Well-known member
I'd imagine that given Churchill's other deeds a jury might find in favour of the statue.
How so? If someone does anything to another statue that is deemed criminal they'll be prosecuted for it.
There is nothing to appeal unless there was some improper direction by the judge. There is no defence that they have under the Act the jury simply just refused to convict them it appears.
The jury are the deciders of fact the judge tells them what the law is.
In effect they appear to be saying that the statue should not have been there ( I agree)
I doubt very much an average jury in this country at this time would come to the same conclusion over a statue of Churchill but in 100 year’s perhaps less that might change.
This judgement doesn’t create a legal precedent it just turns on its own individual facts.
Cress
Well-known member
How Oliver Dowden became secretary of state for the culture wars
Remain-supporting politician has become foot soldier in Cabinet’s attacks against ‘woke’ policies
www.theguardian.com
Piccadilly Day Tripper
Well-known member
Surely they wouldn't get involved in the sort of blatant 'virtue signalling' they all claim to despise, would they?
Piccadilly Day Tripper
Well-known member
Can you give an example of how you would think that would work?
r00fie1
Well-known member
Some talk of how the British Judicial system - including trial-by-jury - epitomises fairness and justice.
Those that dont like the outcome of a fair trial - which was deliberately politicised by Pritti Patel - are now complaining about trial - by - jury.
Its not about criminal damage: its about having a statue which venerates a mass murderer of people enslaved and manacled by Coulson - from which he made a living. 20,000 were murdered by Coulson - including women and children.
Statues of Hussein, Saville, Eric Honecker have been taken down [rightly] to a "hurrah" from the same people who claim a lump of bronze to a mass murder is an attack on their (?) "culture".
Those that dont like the outcome of a fair trial - which was deliberately politicised by Pritti Patel - are now complaining about trial - by - jury.
Its not about criminal damage: its about having a statue which venerates a mass murderer of people enslaved and manacled by Coulson - from which he made a living. 20,000 were murdered by Coulson - including women and children.
Statues of Hussein, Saville, Eric Honecker have been taken down [rightly] to a "hurrah" from the same people who claim a lump of bronze to a mass murder is an attack on their (?) "culture".
Very much the same way as say r v turnbull. A case happens which breaks new ground. It’s then referred to and used in future cases.
newusername
Well-known member
It was listed...
STATUE OF EDWARD COLSTON, Non Civil Parish - 1202137 | Historic England
List entry 1202137. Grade II Listed Building: Statue Of Edward Colston. May include summary, reasons for designation and history.
historicengland.org.uk
Corco65
Well-known member
Perhaps a precedent has previously been set.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/pounds-1-5m-hawk-attack-women-freed-1331285.html
Attachments
newusername
Well-known member
IANAL but I don't think criminal courts can set precedent, if the judgement is appealed and taken to the Court of Appeal & now onto the Supreme Court then precedent can be set.
There are times when a new law gets tried for the first time and the judgement can be referred to in future cases but it doesn't have to be followed. Again, that is just my layman's understanding & happy to be corrected by an expert.
Unravel_Morrison
Well-known member
That doesn't apply here. There's no legal precedent being set.
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret
Well-known member
This doesn't set a precedent as it happened earlier in the year too when extinction rebellion protesters got off. I'm sure it's happened loads of times previously too. Personally I think that in the future the jailing of ER protesters will be seen in the same light as the persecution of Alan Turing. Besides which a jury ignoring evidence isn't setting a legal precedent, because it's the jury.
If I was on a jury if I did not agree with the law I would certainly ignore it and find them not guilty.
If I was on a jury if I did not agree with the law I would certainly ignore it and find them not guilty.
Colston is a Crown court case decided on its own particular facts by a jury as a tribunal of fact it has no effect on the law it remains unaltered.
A jury just refused to criminalise the defendants, you can’t make a jury convict someone if they refuse to do so and that appears to have here.
R v Turnbull relates to the Court of Appeal giving mandatory guidance to lower courts re issues of evidence. That is how common law precedent works it is not the same as the Colston case at all.
A jury just refused to criminalise the defendants, you can’t make a jury convict someone if they refuse to do so and that appears to have here.
R v Turnbull relates to the Court of Appeal giving mandatory guidance to lower courts re issues of evidence. That is how common law precedent works it is not the same as the Colston case at all.