Edward Colston

Have they been found 'not guilty' of causing criminal damage? Or is there some extraneous circumstances or a technicality of law that has caused the verdict?
 
The jury's train of thought may have been: They have damaged some property. It is public property. Therefore it is my property. Am I bothered that they have damaged this particular property. No I am not. Therefore no crime. Therefore not guilty.
 
Caesium137 said:
Have they been found 'not guilty' of causing criminal damage? Or is there some extraneous circumstances or a technicality of law that has caused the verdict?
Click to expand...
According to legal twitter they'll have used one of four well known defences. I don't know the ins and outs but they seem to be fairly well established laws/processes.


JackG said:
They can't do that because they can't know how the jury interpreted the defence. The jury could have acquitted for reasons entirely unconnected to any defence presented in court. They can only rule if there was an error in law in the instructions given to the jury.
Click to expand...
Good point. I should have just left the first sentence. I stand corrected.
 
Boom. There it is. No.3.

"A person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse if:-

(1) they used such force as was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be

(2) in the prevention of a crime.

(3) When they gave evidence you may consider that the Ds were saying they used force to prevent the following crimes:

the public display of indecent matter

the display of a visible representation which is abusive, within the sight of a person likely to be caused distress by it."
 
ThePrisoner said:
Boom. There it is. No.3.

"A person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse if:-

(1) they used such force as was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be

(2) in the prevention of a crime.

(3) When they gave evidence you may consider that the Ds were saying they used force to prevent the following crimes:

the public display of indecent matter

the display of a visible representation which is abusive, within the sight of a person likely to be caused distress by it."
Click to expand...
absolutely, but certain MPs, media figures and influencers are ignoring this
 
ThePrisoner said:
Boom. There it is. No.3.

"A person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse if:-

(1) they used such force as was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be

(2) in the prevention of a crime.

(3) When they gave evidence you may consider that the Ds were saying they used force to prevent the following crimes:

the public display of indecent matter

the display of a visible representation which is abusive, within the sight of a person likely to be caused distress by it."
Click to expand...
This alone invalidates a lot of people opinion that a decision was made by on emotion

Eggonface.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top