Random Irritations

[KenL]

With all the footage, it beggars belief that a simple guilty verdict wasn’t returned in about 10 minutes. I suspect that members of the jury agreed with what they did and based their decision on that and not the law.

I agree 100%. A disgrace. Retrial hopefully.

 

[KenL]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

It’s not the jury’s fault unless they went in with their mind made up!
How there is no conviction for ramming into a place of work armed with weapons, determined to wreck the place and not complying with police instructions to surrender and breaking the spine of one of them is bizarre.

 

[Billysboots]

It’s not the jury’s fault unless they went in with their mind made up!
How there is no conviction for ramming into a place of work armed with weapons, determined to wreck the place and not complying with police instructions to surrender and breaking the spine of one of them is bizarre.

Ken, with respect, you have either not read the very post you’ve quoted, or not fully understood what Rich said.

 

[Hobbit]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

Listening to the news piece, specifically the charge of grievous bodily harm with intent I thought the CPS screwed up. The issue is proving intent. If intent wasn’t proved, it’s not guilty. A lesser charge of causing grievous bodily harm, i.e. a fractured vertebrae, would have sailed through.

I can’t remember the detail of the other charges but thought the CPS aimed high, which brings a greater risk of failing. I thought the charges had been put together by the office junior. I’d be interested to know what the judge said in summing up. He must be fuming.

 

[KenL]

Ken, with respect, you have either not read the very post you’ve quoted, or not fully understood what Rich said.

Explain please.
Edit… My intention was not to criticise the poster I quoted. Perhaps the jury!

 

[4LEX]

That jury saw and heard 2 months of evidence that none of us have seen or heard.
They were subjected to persuasive arguments by barristers and KCs that we didn’t hear.
They would have been given complex instructions, to which we aren’t party, to follow on how to apply the law to their decisions on each defendant.
Then they deliberated and argued with each other for 36 hours before being unable to agree.
There’s going to be a retrial for some of it, I think.
It’s not the jury’s fault.
Unless you thought I was defending the defendants, which I absolutely did not.

Thanks for the response.

Given the clear evidence my view is the CPS set the bar too high and went for the upper end of the charges they could bring, as Hobbit has mentioned. A huge mistake in hindsight but they were obviously hoping to set an example of these people and lock them up for a long time. Now there's carte blanche for others to do the same and cause more carnage.

I also think some of the jury might've been blinded by an 'agenda' regarding the reason for the protest which played a part in their decision. If a jury member agrees or has a degree of sympathy with the crime, it doesn't matter how much evidence they hear, they will always deliver a not guilty verdict. It happened in the 70's and 80's regarding bank robbers getting off, working class members of the jury had more in common with the robbers than the banks so viewed it as a fair game. Some of the blags people walked away from were unbelievable in that era.

All in all a total mess!