Met police arrest pensioner for ‘jury crime’ already ruled not a crime

Comments

• Cherry@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  So keep on trying to prosecute even though she was acquitted previously. The UK really is scared of protesters. Remember this! They are scared of you rising up.

  Individuals have a right to a fair trial; And a jurors have a right to know what their legal rights are…its not up to a judge to dictate if they do/don’t or when.

  This will lead to more miscarriages of justice. They never learn, the contempt for the public is astounding.

  source
• FishFace@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Novara media can’t cover this case properly, but it does seem stupid/malicious to arrest her for what she has already done before. Though because it’s Novara media I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some new fact they haven’t mentioned.

  But the original case was on a boundary: clearly she and similar protestors wrote their placards with the intention that it would influence jurors to pursue a particular and unlawful course of action. The court found that it did not amount to contempt of court, but it’s hardly obvious. I think if those on Warner’s side here thought about a hypothetical case where Tommy Robinson (found in contempt before) held up a similar side to encourage jurors to acquit those involved in far-right violent protest, or to convict minorities charged of crimes with weak evidence, you might at least think this kind of activity is dodgy if not illegal.

  source

  • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What precisely is the point of a jury if you’re going to constrain how they vote? Of course jury nullification could be bad. And of course it can be good. All legal systems are made up. The whole idea is to allow people — a jury — the freedom to decide for themselves.

    source

    • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s not about complaining about how they vote. The jury doesn’t have complete freedom because that’s the aim; they have complete freedom because there’s no other way to do it and still have a the concept of a jury. They are supposed to follow the directions of the judge in terms of how to apply the law. Telling them, “no actually you don’t have to do that” is definitely dodgy, no matter the technicalities of how they de facto can choose what to do.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • floofloof@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I don’t think The Canary is Novara Media. And in any case, Novara Media seems to have pretty good reporting and discussions.

    source

    • FishFace@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Thanks.

      source