Submitted 1 day ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/01/20/breaking-court-of-appeal-erodes-independence-of-juries/
cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/21260
Today, 20 January, the Court of Appeal has substantially eroded the independence of juries, a centuries-old democratic safeguard against the abuse of power, by ruling in favour of a judge who threatened a jury with criminal proceedings if they applied their conscience to a case concerning climate activists.
Surely a judge has no right to know how a jury make their choice
No indeed, which makes you wonder - why would he say such a thing? Well, he didn’t - the canary has reported this dishonestly. (See my other comment for a fuller explanation)
Yes, but don’t call me Shirley.
I feel like trump is giving all other countries facist right cart blanche because they can be like. well we are not as crazy as this guy.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
Dishonest article from a dishonest outlet.
The judgment can be read here.
The offence in question is a juror engaging in “conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the person intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue,” which is quoted from the Juries Act 1974.
The Canary renders this in its first paragraph as the Judge threatening the jury “if they applied their conscience to a case concerning climate activists.” Applying their conscience is not sufficient for the law in question, and it is not what the judge said; the judge instead “It is a criminal offence for a juror to do anything from which it can be concluded that a decision will be made on anything other than the evidence in the case.” The Canary, and supporters of the appellants, are lying in their public statements about what this case is about, pretending that the judge threatened to convict the jury for acting according to their conscience, instead of doing what he did, which was to warn them that the law prevents them from telling people that they are going to return a verdict according to their conscience instead of according to the evidence.
The reason that law exists is because the rule of law is based on juries finding according to the evidence.
Morphit@feddit.uk 1 day ago
The first rule of jury nullification is: You do not talk about jury nullification.