Having reminded myself of the position, I see that the wording is “without lawful excuse”, but also that -unless this has now also been swept away- the test is a subjective one. In any event I very much remain of the camp that sees part of a juror ‘s role to take a broad view where a conviction would be unjust or otherwise not in the public interest. What of, for example, Clive Ponting?
Nicholas O’Brien: how very highly I value the freedom you and I have to agree to disagree. As I recall that case turned upon “lawful excuse or other reasonable cause” (I shall look it up !) and the defence advocates in that case convinced me that there were issues worthy of a jury’s deliberations. But then: I AM a bear with very little LEGAL brain.
The sentences might be reduced somewhat on appeal but given that the then Carr LJ was the author of R v Trowland and Decker 2023 Crim 919 optimism should be restrained if the Icons hope for an early release.
And I wonder if the police officer who received injuries necessitating time of work, or the member of the public whose treatment for aggressive cancer was delayed by a fortnight, with heaven knows what consequences, would describe the defendants actions as “non violent” in their impact?
I'm sure that the tunnel visioned view of reality held by these obsessive self appointed dogooders would argue that, yeah well, they're collateral damage as we get to save the planet. Nit dissimilar to the 50,000 excess deaths in 2023 as a direct cause of the ( "safe" abd "wffectuve") mrna vaccine
I think it's very quaint that a bunch of useful idiots ( bolstering up policies that are literally bankrupting this country ) who are completely obsessed about their own self righteous agenda, should be so ill informed as to correct protocols. Their know-it-all judgmentalism will hopefully put an end to their nonsense.
Irritating though it may be for “wrinklies” to persist in dragging historical quasi- parallels into the “debate”, what of Peter (now Lord) Hain, in his anti-apartheid days? Would the tearing up of the Lords turf as a stark example have had him convicted and imprisoned under the most recent wave of legislative interference with demonstrations, protests and direct action? If so should we be relaxed about that- or wondering quite when we shall wake up one morning and wonder where all our freedoms and rights have gone? Granted, a respectable argument is there to be had that HIS stance and actions had had to do with an abominable, illiberal and discriminatory system espoused stubbornly by a foreign regime with whom OUR government(s) had maintained trade and other advantageous connections despite a good deal of more orthodox protests which had gone unheeded by the government of the day. With the Just Stop Oil protests, their categories of direct action appear to be founded on the premise that there is no such creature as an innocent bystander. Also, I do believe that SOME of their more disruptive and monetarily damaging initiatives are harder to justify and, indeed, counterproductive if the wish is truly to take the public with you. All of that once said, these cases should in my firm view be evaluated on a case by case basis WITHOUT any judge believe her/himself entitled to prohibit the presenting of one’s case. As examples, I think first of all that ON ITS SPECIFIC FACTS the toppling of Colston’s statue into the harbour WAS justified, that the Recorder of Bristol (an unrelated Blair) had been right to allow the defence teams to present their various lines of defence. That those verdicts in part led to more oppressive legislation is undeniable but in my view to be deplored. As to the convictions in this more recent case, I remain undecided, whereas I very definitely believe that Judge Hehir’s harsh sentences meted out to brave and honourable citizens are grotesque and disproportionate. Right or wrong these caring human beings whatever else deserved some kind of forbearance. Can this, as I hope, be viewed as a malign legacy from the previous Tory administrations and, if so, since obviously there can be no suggestion of interference by the executive in judicial discretion, as a case demanding of a repealing of recent intemperate legislative excrescences?
If you appeal against a sentence passed in a magistrates’ court the Crown Court can increase the sentence. Perhaps the Court of Appeal should have the same power!
Having reminded myself of the position, I see that the wording is “without lawful excuse”, but also that -unless this has now also been swept away- the test is a subjective one. In any event I very much remain of the camp that sees part of a juror ‘s role to take a broad view where a conviction would be unjust or otherwise not in the public interest. What of, for example, Clive Ponting?
Nicholas O’Brien: how very highly I value the freedom you and I have to agree to disagree. As I recall that case turned upon “lawful excuse or other reasonable cause” (I shall look it up !) and the defence advocates in that case convinced me that there were issues worthy of a jury’s deliberations. But then: I AM a bear with very little LEGAL brain.
The sentences might be reduced somewhat on appeal but given that the then Carr LJ was the author of R v Trowland and Decker 2023 Crim 919 optimism should be restrained if the Icons hope for an early release.
And I wonder if the police officer who received injuries necessitating time of work, or the member of the public whose treatment for aggressive cancer was delayed by a fortnight, with heaven knows what consequences, would describe the defendants actions as “non violent” in their impact?
I'm sure that the tunnel visioned view of reality held by these obsessive self appointed dogooders would argue that, yeah well, they're collateral damage as we get to save the planet. Nit dissimilar to the 50,000 excess deaths in 2023 as a direct cause of the ( "safe" abd "wffectuve") mrna vaccine
I think it's very quaint that a bunch of useful idiots ( bolstering up policies that are literally bankrupting this country ) who are completely obsessed about their own self righteous agenda, should be so ill informed as to correct protocols. Their know-it-all judgmentalism will hopefully put an end to their nonsense.
When are we going to hear from the National Treasures?
Irritating though it may be for “wrinklies” to persist in dragging historical quasi- parallels into the “debate”, what of Peter (now Lord) Hain, in his anti-apartheid days? Would the tearing up of the Lords turf as a stark example have had him convicted and imprisoned under the most recent wave of legislative interference with demonstrations, protests and direct action? If so should we be relaxed about that- or wondering quite when we shall wake up one morning and wonder where all our freedoms and rights have gone? Granted, a respectable argument is there to be had that HIS stance and actions had had to do with an abominable, illiberal and discriminatory system espoused stubbornly by a foreign regime with whom OUR government(s) had maintained trade and other advantageous connections despite a good deal of more orthodox protests which had gone unheeded by the government of the day. With the Just Stop Oil protests, their categories of direct action appear to be founded on the premise that there is no such creature as an innocent bystander. Also, I do believe that SOME of their more disruptive and monetarily damaging initiatives are harder to justify and, indeed, counterproductive if the wish is truly to take the public with you. All of that once said, these cases should in my firm view be evaluated on a case by case basis WITHOUT any judge believe her/himself entitled to prohibit the presenting of one’s case. As examples, I think first of all that ON ITS SPECIFIC FACTS the toppling of Colston’s statue into the harbour WAS justified, that the Recorder of Bristol (an unrelated Blair) had been right to allow the defence teams to present their various lines of defence. That those verdicts in part led to more oppressive legislation is undeniable but in my view to be deplored. As to the convictions in this more recent case, I remain undecided, whereas I very definitely believe that Judge Hehir’s harsh sentences meted out to brave and honourable citizens are grotesque and disproportionate. Right or wrong these caring human beings whatever else deserved some kind of forbearance. Can this, as I hope, be viewed as a malign legacy from the previous Tory administrations and, if so, since obviously there can be no suggestion of interference by the executive in judicial discretion, as a case demanding of a repealing of recent intemperate legislative excrescences?
Toppling Colston's statue was criminal damage
Judge Blair should have excluded the line of defence
If you appeal against a sentence passed in a magistrates’ court the Crown Court can increase the sentence. Perhaps the Court of Appeal should have the same power!