Now Extinction Rebellion hand gluers have been acquitted too!
#11
No precedent set but mightily similar verdicts in cars where the same legal argument was used, okay then.
Reply
#12
I mean the jury are human, whether a formal precedent is set or not it’s not unreasonable to think that the at least some members of the jury were influenced by what happened with the Colston four, even if they shouldn’t have been. It was a national news story
Reply
#13
(01-14-2022, 06:07 PM)hudds Wrote: What is interesting is that a jury will probably comprise folk like Sausage (I'd suspect the majority if this Bored is anything to go by) who would be set against the defendents.  So there must have been some persuasive work by the defence.

Either that, or people just listened to the arguments?
That's why we have a jury system.
Reply
#14
(01-14-2022, 07:49 PM)Johnnykayeengland Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 06:07 PM)hudds Wrote: What is interesting is that a jury will probably comprise folk like Sausage (I'd suspect the majority if this Bored is anything to go by) who would be set against the defendents.  So there must have been some persuasive work by the defence.

Either that, or people just listened to the arguments?
That's why we have a jury system.
That's what I'm saying.  Given the jury probably comprised a number of Sausages (possibly the majority), and the prosecution would have pulled out all the stops to get a conviction, even the Sausages and possible other blowhards in the jury were persuaded by the defence's arguments. 

What we can't know is how the jury came to its verdict, which is a pity.
Reply
#15
I have no idea what happened in the trial and as Johnny said maybe the jury just listened to the evidence?!? 

Anyway Jury Nullification is interesting… The laws an ass
Reply
#16
There's an opportunity here.
Reply
#17
There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.
Reply
#18
(01-14-2022, 05:32 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:25 PM)Squid Wrote: So much for the Colston Four verdict having absolutely no influence on future verdicts.

There is a big difference between a legal precedent that binds a court (which Colston Four doesn't) or whether a case might have similar features but must be viewed on its own facts by the jury.  I don't read this case as necessarily being the same and much would depend upon the prosection and defence cases.

Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
Reply
#19
(01-14-2022, 10:19 PM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:32 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:25 PM)Squid Wrote: So much for the Colston Four verdict having absolutely no influence on future verdicts.

There is a big difference between a legal precedent that binds a court (which Colston Four doesn't) or whether a case might have similar features but must be viewed on its own facts by the jury.  I don't read this case as necessarily being the same and much would depend upon the prosection and defence cases.

Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now? As it happens, I would have been inclined to a guilty verdict viewed at remove. Goz ter show, doe it?

(01-14-2022, 09:41 PM)boingingjim Wrote: There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.

And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?
Reply
#20
(01-14-2022, 11:57 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 10:19 PM)Squid Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:32 PM)hudds Wrote:
(01-14-2022, 05:25 PM)Squid Wrote: So much for the Colston Four verdict having absolutely no influence on future verdicts.

There is a big difference between a legal precedent that binds a court (which Colston Four doesn't) or whether a case might have similar features but must be viewed on its own facts by the jury.  I don't read this case as necessarily being the same and much would depend upon the prosection and defence cases.

Influence is not the same as precedent. Juries are members of the general public and the public are influenced by wider social attitudes and that includes the outcomes of similar jury trials, widely reported in the media (which jurors would therefore be permitted to read and wouldn't be viewed as prejudicial).

There seems to be a growing feeling that people can argue water is not wet as long as it's for the right purposes and I wonder where it lead. For a start it's given ER carte blanche to muck about on the trains. I'm pretty sure that won't end well.
You are moving the goal posts (albeit implicitly).  Now, influence cuts more than one way, as I have suggested above.  If a jury is representative of wide views, yours will have been included (and it seems to be me most Brits are not sympathetic to the gluers) so why are you whining now?

(01-14-2022, 09:41 PM)boingingjim Wrote: There's literally a video of them glueing themselves to the train.

That's some OJ level of defence lawyering.

And a jury that is likely to be as representative of those on here who seem to be agin the gluers.  What might that tell you about the facts, argument and verdict?

"Whining"? Expressing my discomfort with a legal verdict is not whining and having seen many examples of the harm trains can do to the human body, I'm very uncomfortable with people thinking that it's ok to play on the railway for political purposes.

Also, I am not at all moving the goalposts, you just thought you were talking down to someone who didn't know the meaning of judicial precedent. Your mistake, not mine.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)