You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

[dyqik]

So, if it was a murder trial (or similar) and the defendant tried to bring up some justification that the judge had already said was inadmissible, you'd vote to acquit, regardless of anything else?

It wouldn't be a murder trial without examination of the motivation and intent of the accused, so your pedantic gotcha fails.

So you would.

You don't seem to understand that murder charges require proof of intent.

[Gfamily]

It wouldn't be a murder trial without examination of the motivation and intent of the accused, so your pedantic gotcha fails.

So you would.

You don't seem to understand that murder charges require proof of intent.

and noggins seems not to understand that not all evidence that a defendant might want to bring in, is admissible.

[dyqik]

So you would.

You don't seem to understand that murder charges require proof of intent.

and noggins seems not to understand that not all evidence that a defendant might want to bring in, is admissible.

That's irrelevant to your post.

You've made a massive false logic leap for rhetorical effect, and made yourself look stupid here.

[Gfamily]

You don't seem to understand that murder charges require proof of intent.

and noggins seems not to understand that not all evidence that a defendant might want to bring in, is admissible.

That's irrelevant to your post.
You've made a massive false logic leap for rhetorical effect, and made yourself look stupid here.

I originally said "Murder (or similar)". My first thought was that a defendant in a case of rape might want to bring up inadmissible details relating to their victim. However, I didn't want that to be triggering, so I headlined with Murder, and widened it with the 'or similar'.
Are you happy for a defendant to bring up anything they want as 'evidence', even where it has been ruled inadmissible? And if the judge had ruled that certain evidence in that case would be inadmissible, would you side with noggins in voting to acquit, regardless of the other evidence?

That's the core of this thread, no?

[dyqik]

and noggins seems not to understand that not all evidence that a defendant might want to bring in, is admissible.

That's irrelevant to your post.
You've made a massive false logic leap for rhetorical effect, and made yourself look stupid here.

I originally said "Murder (or similar)". My first thought was that a defendant in a case of rape might want to bring up inadmissible details relating to their victim. However, I didn't want that to be triggering, so I headlined with Murder, and widened it with the 'or similar'.
Are you happy for a defendant to bring up anything they want as 'evidence', even where it has been ruled inadmissible? And if the judge had ruled that certain evidence in that case would be inadmissible, would you side with noggins in voting to acquit, regardless of the other evidence?

That's the core of this thread, no?

I want to hear the defendants view of why they did it, yes. What my response would be to them being denied that opportunity depends on the case.

There's also not usually a defence in law for theft, so under your interpretation here, a mother that steals baby formula for her starving child is also not allowed to rely on a statement of why she had to steal food.

In that case, I would presume that there was a perceived reason for theft of food, and vote to acquit. In a fraud case for embezzling millions, or in a case for theft of a shipping container load of baby formula, I would not make that assumption.

[IvanV]

There's also not usually a defence in law for theft, so under your interpretation here, a mother that steals baby formula for her starving child is also not allowed to rely on a statement of why she had to steal food.

Necessity - if sufficiently extreme - is a defence against most things short of murder in English law, as set out in this piece from the Crown Prosecution Service. Necessity would mean an immediate threat to your life or safety, such as starvation, exposure, or credible criminal threats.

I think it would probably not be found in the public interest to prosecute a penniless parent stealing milk for a starving infant, if that was their reasonable action.

Though I think it might be somewhat easier for the starving to find alternative solutions to theft for their situation in Britain than in the USA, though interested to learn if others have a different view. There are food banks which don't require you to arrive with "food stamps" or the like, albeit that access to them is controlled to prevent abuse. Financial support in the form of public benefits is more generous and widely available in Britain than US. Social services can issue emergency loans on the spot to those who have an immediate necessity for money. Though that typically would depend upon you having a right of access to financial benefits, which haven't arrived yet or are delayed, or some disaster which has temporary disaster which has depleted you of money. Loan repayments can be deducted from future benefits. It is not uncommon for new benefits applicants to get a loan to tide them over until they start to arrive, especially now they are increasingly paid monthly rather than weekly.

The problem can arise with parents who are drug addicted. Often the child will be taken into care in such a case if the custody of the parent is a threat to the child - spends their money on a fix instead of infant's needs.

An immigrant or asylum seeker who reached such a state of necessity could be taken into custody, and then likely deported.

And as I said up front, even when there isn't a defence in statute or common law, you can still just try to persuade the jury to find you not guilty regardless.

And thank you to Disco for pointing out that there is a statutory defence for public nuisance, which the protestors were likely trying to rely on. That was an error in my previous post.

On the admissibility of evidence, you can't just go into court and get away with a complete reading of War and Peace, etc, in the manner of a representative in the US Congress filibustering a bill. Judges do have powers to ensure that what goes on is relevant and proportionate.

[noggins]

Fair enough. Ive reconsidered and refined my opinion: If I believed a judge was scheming to withold information to prevent jury negation, then I would attempt jury negation on principle. If you can construct a scenario for a murder or rape case where this would apply, its a fair cop - im callous scum, you are great, have 56 Rumpole points and a cake.

[monkey]

There's also not usually a defence in law for theft, so under your interpretation here, a mother that steals baby formula for her starving child is also not allowed to rely on a statement of why she had to steal food.

Though I think it might be somewhat easier for the starving to find alternative solutions to theft for their situation in Britain than in the USA, though interested to learn if others have a different view. There are food banks which don't require you to arrive with "food stamps" or the like, albeit that access to them is controlled to prevent abuse

There are food banks in the US, but they aren't as common as the UK, people are more likely to donate food to a homeless shelter. The ones near me (banks and shelters) are typically organised or associated with churches, but there's one run by some Anarchists too who also do clothes and other useful things. Pretty sure they don't ask any questions and just assume that if you turn up, you need the help.

You use food stamps in the supermarket or similar. You don't need them to use a food bank, or get a meal at one of homeless shelters. Pretty sure the thinking behind them was that poor people can't be trusted to not starve themselves if you just gave them money, because they'd just get hocked up on goofballs instead.

It is true that it's much easier to fall through the cracks here than in the UK though.

[bolo]

You use food stamps in the supermarket or similar. You don't need them to use a food bank, or get a meal at one of homeless shelters. Pretty sure the thinking behind them was that poor people can't be trusted to not starve themselves if you just gave them money, because they'd just get hocked up on goofballs instead.

The Food Stamp Program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008, and printed food stamp coupons were phased out starting in the late 1990s. Benefits are now provided on what is essentially a debit card, although there are still restrictions on what you can legally purchase with it. As Monkey says, you use the benefits at a shop or a farmer's market to buy food, not at a food bank or a shelter where food is given away.

[dyqik]

There's also not usually a defence in law for theft, so under your interpretation here, a mother that steals baby formula for her starving child is also not allowed to rely on a statement of why she had to steal food.

Though I think it might be somewhat easier for the starving to find alternative solutions to theft for their situation in Britain than in the USA, though interested to learn if others have a different view. There are food banks which don't require you to arrive with "food stamps" or the like, albeit that access to them is controlled to prevent abuse

There are food banks in the US, but they aren't as common as the UK, people are more likely to donate food to a homeless shelter. The ones near me (banks and shelters) are typically organised or associated with churches, but there's one run by some Anarchists too who also do clothes and other useful things. Pretty sure they don't ask any questions and just assume that if you turn up, you need the help.

You use food stamps in the supermarket or similar. You don't need them to use a food bank, or get a meal at one of homeless shelters. Pretty sure the thinking behind them was that poor people can't be trusted to not starve themselves if you just gave them money, because they'd just get hocked up on goofballs instead.

It is true that it's much easier to fall through the cracks here than in the UK though.

Up here in the godless frozen north, the food banks are largely non-religious (although local churches may well contribute time, effort and food to them), run by various worthies. They don't have any particular criteria for receiving help. And the one in my town also made it a point to invite the local community at large to the weekly sit-down meals, to help remove stigma from using the food bank and to make connections across the community.

[Fishnut]

I've only been dipping in and out of this thread so apologies if this has been mentioned before, but the decision not to allow climate change to be mentioned in climate change protest cases reminds me very much of the decision taken by the Court of Appeals after the Colston Four were acquitted. They decided that protesters accused of “significant” criminal damage cannot rely on human rights protections when on trial. That decision is problematic, not least because it prevents people from justifying their actions but, as Tom Wainwright, from Garden Court chambers, who represented one of the Colston defendants noted,

because it’s difficult to tell what a court will decide is significant and insignificant damage and what they will interpret as violent in the context of damage to property.