Search results

The Attorney General wasn’t even a qualified QC when proposed for the position by the Prime Minister. As the AG has to be a barrister, she had to be made an honorary QC. She had no problem with Dominic Cummings driving to Barnard Castle in 2020, when asked to investigate, so, yes, it does appear...

I've never blanked you. No, I am not proud of that fact and feel the same way as you do about 'secret societies'. Good for your Grandfather and Father.

Ah, Freemasonry. A law unto themselves. Before you reply, my cousin was lodge master of the Brighton lodge.

This is a very good blog by a barrister explaining the law in this case. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/ As you rightly said, the statue was public property and the...

Morals are subjective.

Not proven is a Scottish verdict, but doesn't apply in English law courts. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that criminal damage was caused. Nobody doubted that damage was caused, but it wasn't criminal.

800 years of trial by jury, but pretty poor fool thinks it's wrong. The jury gave the verdicts (all four of them) because they believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

You think the jury was selected from one demographic? You do know that prosecution lawyers can object to jurors being selected, as well as defence? One juror voted guilty, but the judge accepted a majority vote.

I love the Banksy t-shirts.

Human beings. People are all different.

The CPS had all the evidence they needed, photos, witnesses but juries are unpredictable.

Using another verdict carries no weight at all. People can use the same defence but this wouldn't work elsewhere.

No, I am not a politician. However, before I retired I worked in the Criminal Justice System.

Good heavens. Jacob Rees-Mogg agrees with me. I think I should go and lie down. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59893024

Ooohh. I know this government is trying to throw out judicial reviews because they don't like being held to account.

Verdicts from a jury do not set precedents. If the prosecution think there has been a mistrial they can appeal the verdict.

It's called a sense of humour. Try it.

How do you stick on a slippery slope? Surely you slip? :facepalm:

Trial by jury has been in place for over 800 years in this country. Verdicts may not always be agreeable but they do not undermine any rule of law.

Has anyone on Nsc, who has done jury service, ever been questioned about their political leanings, in the jury room?