Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[icowden]

Unduly emotive, you say! Fancy people getting all exercised about an unliveable planet.

I'm all down with getting exercised about it. But this was a trial regarding a specific criminal charge, and the Judge's job is to try the defendant in law, not adjudicate on the merits of the protest.

 

[newfhouse]

To be fair to the Judge he also gave the guy two opportunities to apologise to the Court and thus avoid a contempt charge. Unfortunately he didn't and so is learning the hard way that that is a bad idea.

I’d like to think I wouldn’t apologise either, but in reality I doubt I’d be as brave as this chap in the face of a month in prison.

the Judge's job is to try the defendant in law, not adjudicate on the merits of the protest.

Isn’t it the job of the jury to decide on the facts and for the judge to consider motivations and mitigating factors if there’s a guilty verdict? When should the defendant explain his reasons?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I suppose it is considered the same as any emotive special pleading that any defendant might make to try to get off.

Doesn't their barrister present the motive as a mitigating factor as part of their defence? As said, it's the jury's job to decide whether their actions broke the law, not whether breaking the law was justified. Having said that, juries are swung all the time by emotive pleading from lawyers.

Too long a sentence for a minor contempt of court though. Deterrent sentence perhaps.

 

[newfhouse]

Doesn't their barrister present the motive as a mitigating factor as part of their defence?

Nixon was representing himself.

 

[spen666]

For those complaining this person has been stitched up.

the person ADMITTED Contempt of Court. He was not found guilty after a trial.

The person admitted they had committed contempt of court .
That sort of takes away the argument he was stitched up. He could have denied the allegation if he believed he had not committed a contempt of court. He didn't deny it and he ADMITTED his guilt

 

[AuroraSaab]

That explains it then. 'Fool for a client' and all that.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[newfhouse]

The person admitted they had committed contempt of court .

Yes. The bigger question is whether he should have been denied the opportunity to explain both his actions and the reasons for those actions.

 

[spen666]

....

Doesn't their barrister present the motive as a mitigating factor as part of their defence? ....

Mitigation is not a defence.

They are seperate things.

A defence is along lines of "I didn't commit the crime" or "you can't prove I committed the crime"

Mitigation is along lines of "I only committed the crime because I had no money and was starving" or "I did it because I was concerned about x y or x"


Mitigation comes after a conviction, but before a sentence

 

[newfhouse]

That explains it then. 'Fool for a client' send all that

Barristers ain’t free.

 

[spen666]

Yes. The bigger question is whether he should have been denied the opportunity to explain both his actions and the reasons for those actions.

You cannot choose to ignore the rules of the court simply because you do not like them.

He knew what the law was. He deliberately chose to break that law.
He is guilty and deservedly is punished for the Contempt of Court.
You cannot have a legal system where everyone is free to ignore and contravene rules they do not like, without facing the consequences

 

[newfhouse]

Mitigation is not a defence.

They are seperate things.

A defence is along lines of "I didn't commit the crime" or "you can't prove I committed the crime"

Mitigation is along lines of "I only committed the crime because I had no money and was starving" or "I did it because I was concerned about x y or x"


Mitigation comes after a conviction, but before a sentence

There’s a middle ground though. “ I did what I did because I was trying to prevent greater harm” is not that unusual a defence, is it?

 

[spen666]

There’s a middle ground though. “ I did what I did because I was trying to prevent greater harm” is not that unusual a defence, is it?

If it is a defence, it is not mitigation.

There is no middle ground.

It is either a Defence or it is mitigation.

you present mitigation after being convicted

 

[newfhouse]

If it is a defence, it is not mitigation.

There is no middle ground.

It is either a Defence or it is mitigation.

you present mitigation after being convicted

I’m suggesting that, in my scenario of attempting to prevent harm, it is entirely cromulent to explain your reasoning as part of the defence as well as in mitigation if found guilty.

 

[spen666]

I’m suggesting that, in my scenario of attempting to prevent harm, it is entirely cromulent to explain your reasoning as part of the defence as well as in mitigation if found guilty.

Whatever you want

i am happy my 5 decades in criminal law give me an understanding of what is a defence and what is mitigation and why they are not the same and are as I explained above.
You however appear to be like the criminal in this case and want to confuse mitigation and defence

 

[newfhouse]

Ok, I'll accept your explanation. i have only been prosecuting and defending criminal cases in each of the last 5 decades.
obviously I and the fellow lawyers and judges I deal with know nothing and you know better

Perhaps you could improve my understanding by commenting on this story.

Fred is a night club bouncer. He is being prosecuted for assault as a result of trying to break up a dangerous disturbance. There is video evidence that shows that he struck Barney causing injury. At what point is Fred allowed to say that he hit Barney to prevent Wilma being strangled? Would his attempt to prevent greater harm be part of his defence (common law in this case?) or must he wait until convicted before offering an explanation as mitigation?