Colston Vandals Cleared

[fender62]

the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371949/BLM-protestors-not-guilty-criminal-damage-toppling-Edward-Colston-statue-Bristol.html

[sanmac]

"... but it's still the correct one because it's the one the jury returned." I think that Timothy Evans and others would strongly disagree with your opinion.

[THECORBYLOON]

"Perhaps they didn’t watch the news that day."

Jurors are meant to consider only the evidence and arguments presented in court and not have regard to anything seen or heard outwith the court.

[naomi24]

Corby, was the act of vandalism, witnessed by television cameras, not mentioned in court - and if not, why not?

[Zacs-Master]

The jury accepted the argument put forward by the defendants’ lawyers – that they had a lawful excuse to remove the statue because it venerated a slave trader responsible for the brutal transportation of thousands of enslaved African people which amounted to a hate crime.’

[bobbinwales]

Am not sure it matters unless the prosecution or CPS can make a good case that there was a misstrial or significant new evidence comes to light to justify a misstrial then its over... not guilty will stand however much you or I think it was wrong. The jury decided.

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, I am not being pedantic but watching something on TV in a Juror's home is different from watching in court, the same footage or footage not broadcast previously which is presented as evidence and that is the point I was making.

[naomi24]

Colston was on trial here - not the vandals - and that makes a mockery of the law.

[andy-hughes]

Sanmac, anyone can disagree with anything with hindsight.

Had the Evans jury known about Christie, Evans would not have been convicted, but they didn't, so he was.

[New Judge]

//...unless the prosecution or CPS can make a good case that there was a misstrial or significant new evidence comes to light to justify a misstrial then its over..//

Not even then, bob. These defendants cannot face prosecution for these offences again under any circumstances. They have been acquitted, there is no prospect of a re-trial even if "new and compelling evidence" comes to light. As I said earlier, the "double jeopardy" legislation only applies to a very small number of very serious offences and criminal damage is not among them.

[Peter Pedant]

thx NJ that makes it clear