This decision does NOT set a legal precedent. A different jury in a different case is free to arrive at a different conclusion. That is absolutely clear.
I can't see how a precedent has not been set. If a Jury can acquit people of criminal damage to the Colston statue, a future jury can acquit people for destroying the Churchill statue, or the Cenotaph. Indeed I would argue that those future acquittals are now far more likely. However, the Jury system is essential to our way of life - as it has been for centuries. Ultimately, it is more important than the existence of the Churchill statue or the Cenotaph. If in the future twelve good people and true decide that those monuments were attacked, defaced or destroyed lawfully because their existence was a hate crime, then so be it. The alternative is to hand verdicts exclusively to magistrates and Judges. The legal vandalism of our monuments will be a bitter pill to take, but it is still a lesser evil than the loss of the right to a trial by jury.
It's a legal fact. According to the law the verdict does not set a precedent. Not opinion, fact (as Rafa would say).
When somebody comes to trial charged with criminally damaging another monument, their legal team would be fools not to cite the Colston verdict (and the reasoning behind it) as the cornerstone of their defence. There are plenty of people out there who passionately believe Winston Churchill was a War criminal and a racist (both surely hate crimes). And there are people who believe the Cenotaph glorifies hate crime. Interestingly, hate crime can now apparently be committed with a complete absence of actual hate. The people who commissioned, built and maintained the Colston statue did not act out of hate. Misguided civic pride perhaps. Outdated, blinkered or partial values perhaps. But not what we would recognise as hate - burning, consuming and violent hostility. The same can be said for the people who commissioned, built and maintain the Churchill statue and the Cenotaph. No hate was involved. But hate was apparently the result - enough hate to justify uncontrolled and violent destruction with no provision for public safety, and the suspension of any rules or regulations normally pertaining to that safety. Regulations always in force when structures in public spaces are demolished in a planned manner by a qualified work force. Is it perhaps possible that the term 'hate crime' has now taken on a distinctly different meaning for so many people in this country that it influenced the decision of the majority of a randomly selected jury? The term 'Orwellian' comes to mind. PS: Not having a personal dig at you @The Penguin or anyone else with differing views. Just speculating on what seems to be a new state of affairs in the country now.
A jury verdict does NOT set a legal precedent, and I can't imagine that any judge would allow it to be used in this way. Court cases involve a lot of laborious detail that does not reach the public, and the jury's verdict must be respected, even when it might seem wrong. I trust them to have had good reason to have come to this verdict, not being privy to what discussion took place in the privacy of the jury room. Neither have I read the defence case, just heard various guesses as to what it was.
We don't really need to have seen all the evidence to draw a credible conclusion though, do we. The Colston 4 were found not guilty because of sympathy for their motives among the jury. The 4 expressed their own hatred of historical slave trading by smashing down a statue in a plain act of mob violence. Those events are on record for all to see. That act of mob violence was found to be legal by the Jury. So mob violence is now legal under some circumstances. That's plain and simple and easy to understand. We, the uninformed masses, can only moderate our future behaviour based on what we can understand. To me, it is also obvious that those people who would do the same to the Churchill statue and the Cenotaph as was done to the Colston statue will now be emboldened to turn their desires into action. And they will relish their day in court citing exactly the same motives as the Colston 4. It doesn't really matter if the jury in their case does not buy it. If they acquit it will just be salt in the wound. If they convict the sentence will be a slap on the wrist. The damage will have been done. The monuments defaced, maybe destroyed. When that day comes, I hope the Colston 4 will enjoy viewing the ongoing consequence of their actions. I expect they will. I'm guessing of course, but I do expect they are the kind of people who would be happy to see Churchill's statue and the Cenotaph reduced to graffiti covered rubble. My last word on this subject I think. I probably passed the point where I was saying anything new about it several posts ago
Good discussion and I think excellent points have been made on both sides. Legally there has certainly been no precedent set, which means a judge could not direct a jury to find a future defendant not guilty just because the material facts in each case are identical. However, I believe that a precedent has been set in the minds of future juries (if they are aware of this case of course, and if not I’m sure the defendants lawyers will make sure that they are) to say that it is ok to find not guilty even though there is no dispute as to the actual physical events that took place. In other words you can reach a conclusion on moral grounds, not just using the legal definition of the alleged offence. And that worries me greatly.
Well over a million have now signed the Tony Blair knighthood petition, including hundreds of family members of the British soldiers who died in his illegal war. Come on Your Majesty - do the decent thing and withdraw the knighthood.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...uman-heart-transplant-safety-ethical-concerns So a genetically modified pig has had its heart removed, some of its genes removed and replaced with some human genes and then the heart transplanted into a human with a severely weakened body due to heart failure. There is now a risk of rejection and also of introducing animal viruses into a human body. Sorry, but this is unnecessary, dangerous and is going way too far to prolong a human life.
Boris is toast, and the jockeying for position will have already have started. The Conservative party will choose between a lurch to the right, as the Republican party has done, or returning to the broad church it used to be.
Michael Gove is already rattling his little sabre at the builders over cladding. What a guy... But as far as I can tell Liz Truss is the only one among the whole menagerie who isn't barmier than a fish in a privet bush.
3 years too late. People who have done absolutely nothing wrong have been plunged into financial ruin over the last 4 years.
They're only plebs though. We have to remember, little people don't matter to our vaunted leaders. Plebs die in a tower block fire, more plebs dreams of home ownership ruined by cladding costs. Plebs die from Coronavirus. Means nothing to the toffs. They don't even know (or care) what the fuss is about. Have a party! bring your own booze
I’m not sure that there is a right minded (in both senses) candidate though. They’re all just bleeding hearts at heart. None of them has the balls to make the tough decisions that would actually improve the country. I saw Lord Frosts name mentioned this morning. Not a bad call and he seems a decent chap and not afraid to be tough when needed. I have no idea if he would be interested though. Anyway, let’s see what tricks Boris has up his sleeve before we elect a replacement.