One In The Eye For The Echr

[Khandro]

No more 'human rights' to pull down statues and trash public spaces in the UK

https://order-order.com/2022/09/28/leftie-lawyers-fume-as-court-declares-colston-statue-toppling-an-act-of-violence/

A sensible decision, wouldn't you agree.?

[Spicerack]

Everybody knows that, gromit. Things move on.
We used to hang people in the 50's, do you think we should still do that?

[Zacs-Master]

Khandro, you can look into any other aspect of the case you wish but you should have learned a lesson from this i.e. look into the cobblers which Guido Fawkes writes before making yourself look a bit daft in believing them and writing completely spurious headlines and sub-text in your posts.

[jno]

as Gromit says, the ECHR was the outcome of Churchill and others persuading Europe that there would be no WW3 if only other nations would adopt the high moral standards of countries like Britain.

So one in the eye for Churchill.

[FatticusInch]

Spicerack
//Everybody knows that, gromit. Things move on.
We used to hang people in the 50's, do you think we should still do that?//

……said the poster who continually reverts back to ‘well in the 70’s’ ad nauseum?

[New Judge]

//I thought they'd get away with it.//

There was never any question of their acquittals being overturned. The hearing was to establish precedent for future cases.

//We have long had the right to protest.
Does the appeal Court judgement now make protesting about something, an illegal act ?//

No it doesn’t. What it does is clarifies the law and rules that criminal damage (which is not allowed) in such circumstances does not fall under the definition of “peaceful protest (which is).”

[Gromit]

Is it because it has ‘European’ in the title that the Rightists want to throw it out with the EU bath water?
Often looks that way.

[Spicerack]

Do I? Never noticed. I did like them. Such freedom. Oh well.

[FatticusInch]

You know you do…..via ‘other means’.

[naomi24]

Gromit 13.31. Not me. I want it thrown out because it’s no longer fit for purpose.

[jim360]

NJ, presumably even while this 'clarifies' the law -- although I'm not sure clarification were needed, really, it was obviously criminal damage in the strictest sense -- surely it doesn't have any effect on subsequent cases?
Although we can obviously never be sure of this, it seemed to be my impression, and most others', that the jury acquitted for reasons that have more to do with nullification than because they agreed with the Defence's case, or because they disagreed with the Prosecution's.

Simply reaffirming that this is criminal damage presumably doesn't change that. Likewise, just because someone at the case raised an ECHR defence doesn't mean that it had any relevance to the Jury's decision.

[FatticusInch]

naomi24
//Gromit 13.31. Not me. I want it thrown out because it’s no longer fit for purpose.//

Oh the irony…..! Lol.

[New Judge]

//…surely it doesn't have any effect on subsequent cases?//

Yes it does , jim. Decisions in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court set precedents which can be cited and must be considered by the lower courts. I’ve been looking for the full transcript, but cannot immediately find it. However, one of the press reports seems to outline the matter, including why the Human Rights issue was addressed when the defendants relied on a number of defence angles:

=====
A range of defences were used in the case. The court of appeal was asked to consider one that argued that a conviction for damage to the statue would have been a disproportionate interference with the defendants’ right to protest under the European convention of human rights.

Juries have an unqualified right to acquit, and the higher court’s decision does not affect the outcome in the Colston case. However, it means defendants in similar cases will not in future be able to rely on the convention’s rights to freedom of thought, expression and assembly.

In a written judgment published on Tuesday, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said: “We have concluded that prosecution and conviction for causing significant damage to property during protest would fall outside the protection of the convention, either because the conduct in question was violent or not peaceful, alternatively (even if theoretically peaceful) prosecution and conviction would clearly be proportionate.”

However, Burnett, representing all three judges who heard the case, said that were the criminal damage “minor or temporary”, the proportionality of conviction would have to be considered by the court. They expected such prosecutions would not be brought because they “would be a disproportionate reaction to the conduct in question”.
=====
Hope this helps

[jim360]

Thanks NJ. In this case I didn't ask the question I meant to ask, which is frustrating, as I did understand that decisions like this will set legal precedents. What I meant is that, since the Jury (probably) acquitted in spite of the law, clarifying it in this way wouldn't have any effect on what juries may decide to do in similar cases in future.

But it seems to even then, because this takes away a particular defence strategy that may well have swayed juries, so thankfully it's still a useful answer in spite of my mess-up :)

[Khandro]

Zacs Mastr // you can look into any other aspect of the case you wish but you should have learned a lesson from this i.e. look into the cobblers which Guido Fawkes writes before making yourself look a bit daft in believing them...//

G.F. Is apparently a daily 'must read' site for parliamentarians of all stripes.

"Guido was voted the best in the Political Commentary category of The Backbencher Political Weblog Awards, run by The Guardian. This was an online poll linked to the Guido Fawkes site, and not a poll of Guardian readers specifically."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Fawkes

Who looks daft ?

[jno]

jim, I think in essence juries decide the facts, not the law. Periodically (Clive Ponting's case was another) they just conclude that a defendant has done nothing wrong.

This was so even back in Georgian days when people could be hanged for just about anything. Surprisingly often, they weren't: jurors weren't all that eager to put their peers to death for trivia.

[Zacs-Master]

You Khandro, You look daft for writing something which is completely untrue. Now, hand me that shovel. That hole you're in is deep enough.

[jim360]

Thanks, too, jno. I suppose what I was getting at was that this seemed to be a pretty pointless exercise. It was obvious (or at least it felt obvious, to me and presumably most others on AB) that the Colston Four were, in at least a literal sense, guilty of breaking the law already. But the Jury was entitled to acquit, and presumably remains entitled to acquit, in spite of this clarification. I suppose the removal of a particular line of defence, or at least the tightening of it, makes some difference, but really the point is that this is what happens with Jury trials. You take a group of common citizens, sit them in a room, ask them to reach a verdict without explanation, and accept that, at times, they'll decide that sure, this person broke The Law, but The Law is an ass, so "Not Guilty".

It's an important protection.

[jno]

yes, the same jury could acquit the same defendants on the same facts tomorrow.

[Khandro]

Zacs -maste, You single yourself out on this thread as on others as being incapable of holding any form of intelligent discussion & therefor result in these ad hominem attacks and straw men arguments get a grip man

[Zacs-Master]

'incapable of holding any form of intelligent discussion'

Apart from proving your OP to be complete nonsense by actually looking at the facts rather than jumping to a completely incorrect conclusion, you mean?

You're seriously deluded, Khandro.