Are we all Trudi Warner?

[matticus]

https://barristermagazine.com/we-ar...rights-of-jurors-in-the-twenty-first-century/

Prosecuted for publicly stating the law, it seems.

 

[newfhouse]

https://barristermagazine.com/we-ar...rights-of-jurors-in-the-twenty-first-century/

Prosecuted for publicly stating the law, it seems.

She’s not alone, although it seems hers is the furthest advanced case so far.


View: https://twitter.com/indigorumbelow/status/1706007156854489373?s=61&t=IaNHN0MzKohAo3Ktl0DsFQ

 

[C R]

https://barristermagazine.com/we-ar...rights-of-jurors-in-the-twenty-first-century/

Prosecuted for publicly stating the law, it seems.

I am uncomfortable with these prosecutions, but the jury nullification idea also makes me uncomfortable, because there's no guarantee that it will be used against a repressive law, merely that the jury may refuse to convict under an unpopular law, regardless of the injustice or justice of the case.

 

[newfhouse]

I am Spartacus.

https://goodlawproject.org/hundreds-copy-trudi-warners-banner-in-backlash-against-solicitor-general/

 

[newfhouse]

I am uncomfortable with these prosecutions, but the jury nullification idea also makes me uncomfortable, because there's no guarantee that it will be used against a repressive law, merely that the jury may refuse to convict under an unpopular law, regardless of the injustice or justice of the case.

Bearing in mind that nobody outside the jury room can ask jurors for the reasoning behind their decisions, how would you propose to police any restrictions?

 

[matticus]

the jury nullification idea also makes me uncomfortable, because there's no guarantee that it will be used against a repressive law, merely that the jury may refuse to convict under an unpopular law, regardless of the injustice or justice of the case.

Do you think the Old Bailey should take down this tablet:

Are they in contempt of court?

And do you think juries are never influenced by personal bias and prejudice when they vote?

 

[Unkraut]

And do you think juries are never influenced by personal bias and prejudice when they vote?

Twelve angry men.

During the collapse of socialism in East Germany a woman was arrested for carrying a banner describing the right of each citizen to freely air their private opinion.

It was a verbatim quotation of the East Germam Constitution, and in the end they had to let her go.

I would hate to think the UK is anywhere near going down that road.

 

[newfhouse]

I would hate to think the UK is anywhere near going down that road.

Too late.

 

[Pale Rider]

It's beyond stupid to stand outside a court with a placard aimed at jurors, even if that placard says nothing particularly controversial.

I've seen several cases in which jurors have taken a view which seems to fly in the face of the evidence.

There was a university lecturer who was masturbating while sitting on a sofa in his bay window, in full view of passers-by.

The offence of outraging public decency was clearly made out, but the jury found him not guilty.

All one can think is they simply refused to convict a man for having a ham shank in his own home.

Similarly, joint enterprise prosecutions sometimes partially fail.

Jurors, it seems to me, like to see their murderers lay hands on the victim, so will acquit the second defendant who 'only' assisted or facilitated the killing without directly administering any violence, even though that person is guilty of murder by joint enterprise.

 

[newfhouse]

It's beyond stupid to stand outside a court with a placard aimed at jurors, even if that placard says nothing particularly controversial.

Should what you see as stupidity result in a criminal record and a possible custodial sentence? What if it’s not a placard they’re holding but a copy of one of your favourite newspapers displaying an inflammatory headline?

Who is the plaque outside the Old Bailey aimed at? Is that equally stupid?

 

[Pale Rider]

Should what you see as stupidity result in a criminal record and a possible custodial sentence? What if it’s not a placard they’re holding but a copy of one of your favourite newspapers displaying an inflammatory headline?

Who is the plaque outside the Old Bailey aimed at? Is that equally stupid?

It's the aiming of a message at the jurors that is the problem, thus me reading a copy of the Currant Bun as a juror happened to walk past wouldn't count.

It's also inconceivable the paper would have a headline which could be said to be trying to influence a sitting jury.

The plaque in the Bailey is another blind alley, it's simply part of the historic fabric of the building.

I'm not sure exactly where it is, but I'm certain it's stuck to the building and no one is trying to wave it in the face of jurors.

 

[Beebo]

I don’t think this is as black and white as you think.

If you allow Trudi Warner, then you have to allow idiots like Tommy Robinson Stephen Yaxley Lennon standing outside with a banner trying to advise a jury that they can pick and choose what to do.

 

[newfhouse]

It's also inconceivable the paper would have a headline which could be said to be trying to influence a sitting jury.

Inconceivable

 

[Pale Rider]

Inconceivable

Come on then let's have some examples.

Just to be clear, we are talking about a headline designed to influence a sitting jury.

I'll save you some time, you won't find any.

You might not like The Sun, but even on here your remarks about it ought to have some vestige of truth about them.

 

[newfhouse]

I don’t think this is as black and white as you think.

If you allow Trudi Warner, then you have to allow idiots like Tommy Robinson Stephen Yaxley Lennon standing outside with a banner trying to advise a jury that they can pick and choose what to do.

Is using your conscience as a juror a right, or not? Is it a worthwhile right if you don’t know about it?