As a tool for rejecting bad law, jury nullification is an opportunity for ordinary people to kick back. However, what just happened in Bristol is not that at all, for there was no bad law being broken.
The acquittal of four people charged with criminal damage after tearing down a statue of Edward Colston is a “landmark” in Britain coming to terms with its past, a TV historian said.
The ‘historian’ in question being that one trick charlatan David Olusoga. Frankly, nothing that race mongering dick says can be taken at face value. However, that aside, having listened to these peoples solicitor trying to justify their actions to Julia Hartley Brewer, I heard the same tired tropes being wheeled out – muh, racism, muh protest…
What these people did was not protest, it was a riot. None of them has denied the charges, for the evidence is available in video footage. Rather, what they did was seek to justify it because Edward Colston was a slave trader, in which they succeeded because the jury acquitted. Now we have a jury deciding that vandalism and destruction of property is fine if you have the right politics. This is not a good day for justice, nor was it a good day for the principle of jury nullification.
I thought that Colston’s only connection with the slave trade was that he was in the textile business which used cotton.
He was involved with the Royal African Company. Oddly, despite it having been set up by the Stuarts and run by the Duke of York – later James II – no one seems to be going after them. Yet…
Funny how all 4 of those blm protesters were white
Often the case. Much like the trans activists who are not trans themselves.
Surely this case should never have been heard in Bristol? Firstly any juror would have known about the case and had a view one way or another, and secondly they would have felt under a great deal of pressure to acquit given that it was highly likely their identities would become known and could potentially face mob retaliation. Surely it should have been moved to another large city court?
They’re actually pro slavery: their own and everybody else’s. They’re just too stupid to see it.
Infantilization again.
I have been surprised and saddened at the reaction of many on the Right about this. Of course the defendants carried out the actions claimed. And the jury decided that this was not a crime.
It’s not a verdict that I would have voted for, but it is the verdict of the jury. This is 12 ordinary people telling the state ‘We will decide on criminal matters, not you.’
Even though this particular verdict is perverse the process of jury nullification is one to be celebrated. The jury verdict does nbot set a precedent in any way, and any reasonably well-informed person knows that.
There are going to be times whan we need jury nullification to fight against the power of the state.
Think back to the man who urinated near a memorial plaque in Westminster. If that had gone to a jury trial would you have voted to convict? I would not have.
The power of the state has increased remarkably since the apearance of Covid 19. This worries and frightens me.
Even though the verdict of the Bristol jury is perverse it does say ‘This is our country, not the government’s country.’
Jury nullification is something to honour and celebrate.
Of course the trial should not have been held in Bristol, but that’s a different matter.
It’s another example of the state fouling things up.
The state often, or even usually, fouls things up.
It’s precisely because I approve of jury nullification that I deplore this result. These people were clearly guilty of a crime. What the jury has done here is not reject bad law or a bad decision to prosecute, because neither applies. They have made a decision that politics trumps the law.
Just because a jury reaches a conclusion, it doesn’t mean that it is the right one or that it should be celebrated. See, for example, wrongful convictions.
Also, this prosecution was not an example of state over reach.
I stand by my disapproval here. I also agree that the case should have been heard outside Bristol.
Just to add to this… this result was not a thumbing of the nose to the state, it was a two finger salute to the law abiding citizens of Bristol who had to endure these people rioting in their city. This outcome merely encourages more of the same.
Despite being found not guilty in a criminal case, there is still a way of punishing these morons. The statue was the property of Bristol Council, and it was damaged by these morons. Civil law allows legal action to recover the financial costs of recovering the statue and any repairs that need to be done to it. A little bit of ruined credit ratings, seized assets, or even bankruptcy, should concentrate their collective single figure IQ somewhat.
Given the piece of plankton that is the Bristol mayor, this ain’t going to happen.
I am fed up with people trashing our history. I’d have lined up these four morons and shot them.