Search results

Her appointment was seen as joke within the legal profession.

oohh, let your mask slip there.

The problem with your argument is the defendants never tried (they couldn't) deny that they pulled down a statue and dumped it in the dock. It was done in plain site, recorded and the footage distributed widely. Not only by the media but by the wider protestors at large. The evidence was...

.. you mother.

I think when you exhausted every other line of argument (and been proven wrong) you may as well throw identity politics in. It's a "smell my cheese" moment.

Did Magna Carta die in vain ?

Well it's difficult, but I'd imagine they were presented a compelling argument from the defence that a crime wasn't committed and agreed. But of course, that is only my opinion.

Because they are not legal experts and picked from the general public. Can I ask, did you just arrive here from outer space ? Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

As you've now redefined the meaning of "precedent" (a legal term) for the sake of argument, I may as well respond. I'm not sure a judge should direct the Jury to ignore a very well argued case of not guilty on the basis that it might cause someone else purely hypothetically to commit...

Juries can't set precedent mate. :lolol:

But that wasn't and won't be the case here, unless somebody pulls down another publicly owned and publicly displayed statue that celebrates a slave trader or similar individual. In actual fact, the CPS (and the Police) weren't particularly interested in pursuing this one at all, but were lent...

The Jury under existing laws. It was successfully argued that the existence of the statue itself was a public order offence. For instance if somebody erected a statue of Jimmy Saville in Leeds City Centre, you could smash it up and direct your Barrister to use the same defence. Wait a...

No because that would mean a precedent had been set and Juries can't set precedents. You've also clearly misunderstood the defence. The defence wasn't that the protestors claimed ownership of the statue, it was they reasonably believed consent would be given by those who did. Do keep up.

No they couldn't legally because no precedent has been set.

He also thinks Begum should be tried in a UK Court. I suspected he would support the Jury , he always does. Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

It can't... ..legally. ( did anyone mention that ? ) Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

May as well say it again, just to bang the point home. Decisions made by a jury CAN'T set a precedent. That isn't your opinion, it's your misunderstanding.

That's a defence in law. It's not criminal damage if you reasonably believed you had consent to do so by the "owners". Since the statue was publicly (not privately) owned by the "People of Bristol" who best placed placed to judge ? Probably 12 randomly selected members of the Bristol general...

.. and I'm sure you can read. Two of the defence arguments (based on law) was: 1) They had consent to do so 2) The statue being there was against the law itself .. and the jury agreed.