You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by bjn » Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:38 pm

Just read this story in the Graun. Chap jailed for contempt because he voiced his motive for taking part in an Insulate Britain action.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... t-of-court

Since when have you not been allowed to talk about motivation in court? Given that people have been found innocent after causing property damage when they’ve given their motives. (Nuns smashing up airplanes if I recall correctly).

Legal peeps here might know WTF this is about.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:06 pm

I don't think there's a blanket ban on mentioning climate change in trials. Apparently though in this type of trial, discussing motivation for breaking the law isn't relevant, presumably because it might be judged to sway the jury in an unacceptable way - presumably because if defendants are allowed to defend on the basis of "yes I did it, but it was okay because I really needed to", except where allowed in law, then that undermines the rule of law. Maybe it's specific to the offence? I dunno.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by dyqik » Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:35 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:06 pm
I don't think there's a blanket ban on mentioning climate change in trials. Apparently though in this type of trial, discussing motivation for breaking the law isn't relevant, presumably because it might be judged to sway the jury in an unacceptable way - presumably because if defendants are allowed to defend on the basis of "yes I did it, but it was okay because I really needed to", except where allowed in law, then that undermines the rule of law. Maybe it's specific to the offence? I dunno.
It may also have been earlier ruled irrelevant in court, and the defense ordered not to bring it up.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by jdc » Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:43 pm

Looks like the same judge made a similar call a while back: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/03/ ... entencing/
During their trial in January, Judge Silas Reid at Inner London Crown court denied Mark and James the chance to argue that they were exercising their right to protest as set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. Instead, he directed the jury that the two of them had no defence in law.
More on Silas Reid from your favourite news source here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... uilty.html
The judge had told the court: ‘I have concluded that whatever the honest apprehension of danger to the community, and however imminent that danger, the law does not afford a defence of necessity to illegal actions undertaken to publicise the danger and to change people’s minds or Government policy.

‘To do so would run clearly against public policy.

‘Effectively the law indicates that objectively criminal actions taken for those purposes are not and cannot be reasonable and proportionate.

‘Even if all other means, i.e. resorting to law, lobbying Parliament, lobbying the Government, going to the media, demonstrating and any other, have been exhausted this does not permit criminal activity by way of obstructing the railway.’

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by jimbob » Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:52 pm

jdc wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:43 pm
Looks like the same judge made a similar call a while back: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/03/ ... entencing/
During their trial in January, Judge Silas Reid at Inner London Crown court denied Mark and James the chance to argue that they were exercising their right to protest as set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. Instead, he directed the jury that the two of them had no defence in law.
More on Silas Reid from your favourite news source here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... uilty.html
The judge had told the court: ‘I have concluded that whatever the honest apprehension of danger to the community, and however imminent that danger, the law does not afford a defence of necessity to illegal actions undertaken to publicise the danger and to change people’s minds or Government policy.

‘To do so would run clearly against public policy.

‘Effectively the law indicates that objectively criminal actions taken for those purposes are not and cannot be reasonable and proportionate.

‘Even if all other means, i.e. resorting to law, lobbying Parliament, lobbying the Government, going to the media, demonstrating and any other, have been exhausted this does not permit criminal activity by way of obstructing the railway.’
That sounds like a judge overstepping his remit.

Historically, reasons for performing actions have been taken into account, and where the people disagreed with the law often juries would find people innocent rather than have them suffer unjust penalties.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by IvanV » Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:13 pm

There's a fuzzy line between stating your reasons for your actions, and using the courtroom as a soapbox to make an extended political statement. The latter would be an abuse. I don't think the defendant can reasonably be allowed to use the courtroom as a platform to convert the jury to their cause.

So I can understand a judge trying to ensure that abuse did not happen. From the judge's various comments, I think he has not prevented the court from being aware of plain evidential point - that the defendants were making a protest for a particular cause and what that cause was.

Not saying that's what was going on here. But just to explore a potentially reasonable judicial reason to shut a defendant up.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by Opti » Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:35 pm

Is this as a result of legislation brought in after the Clive Ponting acquittal?
Time for a big fat one.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by IvanV » Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:10 pm

Opti wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2023 5:35 pm
Is this as a result of legislation brought in after the Clive Ponting acquittal?
No. I am no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure of that.

Clive Ponting was acquitted an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1911. That Act provided for a public interest defence for revealing official secrets, which he successfully argued applied in his case. The Official Secrets Act 1989 removed that public interest defence. But that change is only in relation to revealing official secrets.

Still not a lawyer, but as far as I can see the defendants in these protest cases do not, and have never had, a statutory public interest defence for their actions. The best they can do, as I see it, is achieve what is sometimes called "jury negation". That is when you have pretty clearly committed the offence in technical legal terms, but you are hoping the jury will acquit you anyway, which juries may sometimes do, if they feel it was reasonable for you to commit the offence, or unreasonable that you should be prosecuted for it. If the state can decline to prosecute an offence technically committed, on the grounds of the public interest, in effect the jury can do the same thing by acquitting you of an offence they think you shouldn't have been prosecuted for.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by shpalman » Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:20 pm

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by discovolante » Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:51 am

Without looking into it, this seems to me poor reporting by the guardian if they've failed to provide any of the legal context whatsoever.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by noggins » Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am

Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:17 am

noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.
"Pulls that sh.t" in this case apparently ruling on a point of law, which is the judge's job to do

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by discovolante » Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:34 am

Public nuisance is a statutory offence: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... 78/enacted and there is a defence of 'reasonable excuse' (see s78(3)) which I assume is what the defendant was relying on. So ivan's possibly right that he was allowed to state his reasons but the judge decided there was some limit to that, rightly or wrongly. But the guardian article doesn't give very much detail about that other than that the judge said he could refer to climate change in a 'limited way', maybe they weren't there for the previous hearings.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:51 am

discovolante wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:34 am
Public nuisance is a statutory offence: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... 78/enacted and there is a defence of 'reasonable excuse' (see s78(3)) which I assume is what the defendant was relying on. So ivan's possibly right that he was allowed to state his reasons but the judge decided there was some limit to that, rightly or wrongly. But the guardian article doesn't give very much detail about that other than that the judge said he could refer to climate change in a 'limited way', maybe they weren't there for the previous hearings.
So what's a reasonable excuse.

There is are interesting difference between the two cases. Firstly, there was a direct link between the aircraft and the harm that the protestors wanted to prevent. There was evidence that the Hawk's would be used to commit genocide. Whereas the link between the road and climate change is less direct. Certainly cars emit carbon. But blocking that road isn't going to have any noticeable effect upon global warming.

Secondly, as mentioned in the Wiki, the protestors who damaged the Hawk argued successfully that their actions were consistent with UK legislation that implemented the UN convention on genocide.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by discovolante » Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:01 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 9:51 am
discovolante wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:34 am
Public nuisance is a statutory offence: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... 78/enacted and there is a defence of 'reasonable excuse' (see s78(3)) which I assume is what the defendant was relying on. So ivan's possibly right that he was allowed to state his reasons but the judge decided there was some limit to that, rightly or wrongly. But the guardian article doesn't give very much detail about that other than that the judge said he could refer to climate change in a 'limited way', maybe they weren't there for the previous hearings.
So what's a reasonable excuse.

There is are interesting difference between the two cases. Firstly, there was a direct link between the aircraft and the harm that the protestors wanted to prevent. There was evidence that the Hawk's would be used to commit genocide. Whereas the link between the road and climate change is less direct. Certainly cars emit carbon. But blocking that road isn't going to have any noticeable effect upon global warming.

Secondly, as mentioned in the Wiki, the protestors who damaged the Hawk argued successfully that their actions were consistent with UK legislation that implemented the UN convention on genocide.
Those are criminal damage cases. Criminal damage is also a statutory offence, here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1 the equivalent element is 'without lawful excuse' (which isn't necessarily the same as reasonable excuse) and forms part of then offence, rather than being a defence to the offence.

'Without lawful excuse' is defined in section 5: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5 and specifically relates to protecting property.

The BBC article is also light on detail but it seems possible that the defendants relied on section 5(b). The other case refers to the genocide act so the lawful excuse element might not be relevant.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by noggins » Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:26 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:17 am
noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.
"Pulls that sh.t" in this case apparently ruling on a point of law, which is the judge's job to do
So what? the Jury can do what it likes.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by Gfamily » Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm

noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.
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?
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by TopBadger » Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:12 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.
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?
Wow - that's quite the change of context there.

I get what Noggins is saying - Is the job of a jury simply to parrot the verdict that would be given by a Judge? Surely the point of trials by Jury is to appeal to the perspectives of a group of people rather than simply apply the law as it is written?
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:21 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:12 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spitr.
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?
Wow - that's quite the change of context there.

I get what Noggins is saying - Is the job of a jury simply to parrot the verdict that would be given by a Judge? Surely the point of trials by Jury is to appeal to the perspectives of a group of people rather than simply apply the law as it is written?
The point of the jury is to have someone not working for the state assess what they think happened - to rule on questions of fact - it is not to assess what the law is, which is the job of the judge, or to decide what the law should be, which is the job of parliament.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by noggins » Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:31 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:21 pm
The point of the jury is to have someone not working for the state assess what they think happened - to rule on questions of fact - it is not to assess what the law is, which is the job of the judge, or to decide what the law should be, which is the job of parliament.
Not the only point. Every jury trial is a test of the justness of the law: are twelve typical citizens able to stomach applying it ?

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by noggins » Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:43 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spite.
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.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by Gfamily » Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:57 pm

noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:43 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm
noggins wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:07 am
Wow. Any judge pulls that sh.t on my jury-dragooned ass im returning “not guilty” out of spite.
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.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by noggins » Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:14 pm

Ok I would then, the judge will just have to accept a majority verdict of guilty instead of an unanimous one.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by monkey » Wed Feb 08, 2023 6:46 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:21 pm
TopBadger wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:12 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:34 pm


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?
Wow - that's quite the change of context there.

I get what Noggins is saying - Is the job of a jury simply to parrot the verdict that would be given by a Judge? Surely the point of trials by Jury is to appeal to the perspectives of a group of people rather than simply apply the law as it is written?
The point of the jury is to have someone not working for the state assess what they think happened - to rule on questions of fact - it is not to assess what the law is, which is the job of the judge, or to decide what the law should be, which is the job of parliament.
Part of the state's role in the Justice system is the CPS (and equivalent elsewhere). Their process of decision making includes whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. Shouldn't the jury also be able to base their decision on whether that bit was decided correctly or not? That could very much cover things like whether a law is being applied justly, or if a defendant has a good excuse.

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: You can’t talk about climate change in trials.

Post by discovolante » Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:39 pm

Judges can decide what evidence should or shouldn't be presented to a jury, in terms of what's admissible and I guess relevant to the proceedings in question. Judges sometimes get that wrong, or maybe just about right but still a bit unfair, sometimes they get it spot on in terms of the law and the law is unfair. Etc. In this case the cat got out of the bag and there probably isn't much that could have been done about it if the jury had voted to acquit, other than make an example of him, which the judge did.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

Post Reply