Edward Colston

Not just Colston - the whole of Bristol seemed to be a City built on slavery.

2,100 slave ships set sail from Bristol and a lot of the buildings and wealth of City came from slavery and its financial legacy.

No wonder its been played down in the past, its not something to be proud of.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your not there to decide if the law fits your agenda and beliefs. Your there to make a decision based on the law of the land.
 
Facefuzz said:
Your not there to decide if the law fits your agenda and beliefs. Your there to make a decision based on the law of the land.
Click to expand...
What would you're grammar say?

Redwurzel said:
No wonder its been played down in the past, its not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...
If erecting statues, naming thoroughfares and civic amenities after brutal slavers we should be grateful they never sought to celebrate it. Bristol is not alone though. Liverpool and other cities thrived on the slave trade or its produce.
 
Facefuzz said:
For me the wrong decision in court.
They broke the law, and they did commit criminal damage, no matter what their intentions.
It does set a dangerous precedent and will now be a stated case for criminal damage which will be used to get people off.
Click to expand...
They haven’t broke the law, the verdict was not guilty
 
The legal arguments put forward by the defence included;

  • A submission that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  • That the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
  • In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • A person has a lawful excuse if they believed at the time that those whom they believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances - Sect 2 CDA 1971 highlights this as a defence.

We will never which of these convinced the jury but there is enough scope to see that they could use one of these arguments to find not guilty.
 
Millbrook said:
The legal arguments put forward by the defence included;

  • A submission that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  • That the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
  • In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • A person has a lawful excuse if they believed at the time that those whom they believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances - Sect 2 CDA 1971 highlights this as a defence.

We will never which of these convinced the jury but there is enough scope to see that they could use one of these arguments to find not guilty.
Click to expand...
Where is the bullet point asking the jury to go with their emotion and not the law?
 
Millbrook said:
The legal arguments put forward by the defence included;

  • A submission that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  • That the jury should consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
  • In addition, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, the trial is believed to be the first trial in which a jury was required to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would have been a disproportionate infringement of the defendants' rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • A person has a lawful excuse if they believed at the time that those whom they believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances - Sect 2 CDA 1971 highlights this as a defence.

We will never which of these convinced the jury but there is enough scope to see that they could use one of these arguments to find not guilty.
Click to expand...
I think it's more to do with the jury ignoring the law and doing what they felt was right.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I think it's more to do with the jury ignoring the law and doing what they felt was right.
Click to expand...
No the defence gave them legal reasons to acquit so they could do what they thought was right.

I seem to remember that convicts could be transported to Australia for petty crimes and a value was put on the stolen item which warranted deportation.
Juries were sometimes invited to find that the item was valued at less than the trigger point if the circumstances deserved leniency.
 
Honestly don't be ridiculous. You're guessing like I am. A jury does not have to give any indication of why they found a person innocent and I think it's hugely plausible they didn't give a **** what the law says and went with their own morals.
 
Facefuzz said:
Your not there to decide if the law fits your agenda and beliefs. Your there to make a decision based on the law of the land.
Click to expand...
not quite as simple as that is it. Accentuating circumstances, common sense, nuance, context all can and have com into play for a whole variety of cases, if it was purely on law then the jury would be made up of lawyers because only they understand the law fully.

Anyway, would like to see some kind of summary on why they found not guilty, law is complex, and to simply say they are clearly guilty but the jury didn't follow the law is a simplification
 
Last edited:
In my opinion which I am entitled to, they broke the law!! It is irrelevant that it was causing offence.
If they were offended by it they should take it up with the authority that put it there to take it down and not take the law into their own hands.
Whether it should have been there or not is beside the point.
We are on a sticky wicket when the law can't protect peoples property because that's what is happening.
When people decide to take the law in to their own hands only anorchy can pursue.
 
BoroMart said:
not quite as simple as that is it. Accentuating circumstances, common sense, nuance, context all can and have com into play for a whole variety of cases, if it was purely on law then the jury would be made up of lawyers because only they understand the law fully.

Anyway, would like to see some kind of summary on why they found not guilty, law is complex, and to simply say they are clearly guilty but the jury didn't follow the law is a simplification
Click to expand...
See my post 46 for the legal argument in their defence. We will never know why the jury found them not guilty but there is enough legal basis for them to do so.
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on it but there was a trial and a jury heard all the evidence (which everyone on here I’m assuming wasn’t party too) and they found them not guilty.

More worrying is the calls, from some, to somehow not have a jury if they aren’t going to give the “right” results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top