Scrutable

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

Is this as a result of legislation brought in after the Clive Ponting acquittal?

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.

I'm reminded of the group of women who damaged a Hawk... to stop the aircraft being exported to the Indonesian military, for use in the illegally occupied country of East Timor.

And more recently, 'Greater good' pair cleared of BAE criminal damage.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:20 pm

I'm reminded of the group of women who damaged a Hawk... to stop the aircraft being exported to the Indonesian military, for use in the illegally occupied country of East Timor.

And more recently, 'Greater good' pair cleared of BAE criminal damage.

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.

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.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:20 pm

I'm reminded of the group of women who damaged a Hawk... to stop the aircraft being exported to the Indonesian military, for use in the illegally occupied country of East Timor.

And more recently, 'Greater good' pair cleared of BAE criminal damage.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.