The Colston 4

[TheCat]

Its January 6th, amnesty is over, time for a thread where people can hurl insults at eachother again....:)

A fascinating debate emerging today in the papers with regards to this scquittal of the 'Colston 4' on the charge of criminal damage for pulling down the statue in Bristol.

So my take on what have here is a case of 'Our values' versus 'The law'. Sure, one could argue that the law should be soemthing which reflects society's values. And, while I personally beleive the 'value' of opposing slavery is clearly the 'correct' one (concincdentally, it also happens to be 'the law' as well, as it happens!), this decision does set a very dangerous precendent to my mind, as to how these two dyanmics of values versus laws interact within the legal system...nice when they align...but as in this case, they didnt....and it seems a recipe for trouble...

When they donlt align....where is the line? Who gets to decide which laws and which values takes precendence over the other? Is crime A excusable in the name of Value B?

I expect many who share my concern probably wholeheartedly agree with the 'values' which drove the 'Colston 4'. So their 'values' will likely be on the right side of history (as the defence put it, apparently), but were the actions taken in support of those values b on the right side of the law? And is a court meant to judge matters of law or matters of value?.....

SO many questions. I'll sign off with a a hypothetical for the EDF to ponder....

Lets imagine we had use of a time machine, and it wasnt a statue of Colston on top of that plinth, but we'd brought Edward Colston himself to 2020, and set him atop that plinth. Here is the actual man who did all these terrible things and benefitted from others misery, surely he deserves to feel the cold hands of justice? just as the court said his statue did? Should the crowd have been acquitted of assult (or worse) if they'd torn him off the plinth and thrown him into the river?

[DuncanW]

No-one attacked a living human being though, and it's against both the law and 'our values' to do so. So not sure the imaginary hypothesis is the best mechanism to consider our thoughts on the real world events, which in my opinion are fairly straightforward.

The action against these four was wrong, but I think the jury was the 'least best' juncture for it to be halted.

The CPS should have ruled the case out as not being in the public interest, and if a jury had found them guilty the judge could and should have issued an unconditional discharge.

[Earl Aelfheah]

couldn't agree more re. the CPS. How anyone could think this prosecution was in the public interest is beyond me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When they donlt align....where is the line? Who

> gets to decide which laws and which values takes

> precendence over the other?

Ultimately, a jury of 12 do.

[JohnL]

I've seen cases reported where the Judge directs the jury to find guilty and they still find Not guilty - the jury decision stands.

[TheCat]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> couldn't agree more re. the CPS. How anyone could

> think this prosecution was in the public interest

> is beyond me.

I totally agrtee with this as well. But given that it did go to court...I think the outcome rasies some contentious issues and precendents as I've mentioned....

lets move away form the emotice issue of salevery/raceism then....

If I start grwoing and selling truckloads of marijuana.....plenty of people's values probably mean they dont care that much, andh they wqould like to see it legalised...if I then get busted by the police.....should I expect to be found not guilty of drugoffences, becuase most people are cool with it?

Its a simislr concept surely?

[JohnL]

Brian Moore (Rugby & Twitter fame) said many times defendants gain the sympathy of the Jury and sometimes get off (he was a Solicitor).

it really can depend on the Jury and the defence team/defendant as much as the truth.

[TheCat]

or, how about this one?......given that country voted to Leave the EU, albeit by a small margin, would that allow me to escape the law if I went and toppled the Sir Ted Heath bust at the national portrait galltey and replaced it with one of Boris (or perhaps Nigel?).....

If your opinion on that is coloured by whether or not you support brexit, then that very stange seems strange to me...as eitrher way, surely Im willingfully damaging prublic property? (not to mention casuing a 'public nuisance' with my ourtageous farage scultpure:))

[JohnL]

You're gambling on the Jury - but if they all hated Heath

I very much doubt someone would get away with damaging Thatcher, Heath etc.

Blair could be interesting

[TheCat]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No-one attacked a living human being though,

No they didnt.....but here's he thing...where's the 'line'? what crime is sufficiently excusable....Toppling a statue that represents a guy who profitted from salvery....thats seemingly okay...but killing someone...probably a step too far.

Sure they are both examples at extreme ends of the spectrum...but there is a spectrum....

Lets go a little less extreme.....What about smashing someone's windows becuase they dont beleivee in climate change?.....im sure everyone on here will have a different answer as to how approrioate that is or not...and this is the thing...where's the line that evareyone expects/knows must abide by...yes everyone canm 'think' what they like, but the 'actions' they take need a line that needs to be policed. Isnt the reason we have laws becuase they are meant to be that line which controls 'actions'?

[JohnL]

if you cross the line you get arrested but you can still have the right to a trial where the jury make a decision.

Juries get things wrong but it's our system and it works in general.

In USA they'd probably be pressurised into a plea bargain before trial.

[diable rouge]

A lot of talk from right-wing types about this case 'setting a dangerous precedent', but as legal expert Prof Steve Peers has pointed out, ''jury verdicts don't set precedents at all''

Funny how there's no concern from them for a Gov that wants to take away the right to protest if it causes ''unease'', whatever that means.

Seems to me this is more about not agreeing with the jury's verdict than how our judicial system works...

[TheCat]

> Seems to me this is more about not agreeing with

> the jury's verdict than how our judicial system

> works...

Yep..I think it's all about that. To clarify, I didn't intend to use the word 'precedent' in the formal 'case law' sense, so perhaps a poor choice of words of my behalf in this context...So you can point Prof Peers and his Twitter account elsewhere;)

So, yes, you're right.... I'm not sure about the decision....as it seems to me that many 'left wing type's are justifying the decision on the basis that it was the statue itself that was on trial, as opposed to the actions of defendents...

[malumbu]

Interesting debate on Jeremy Vine today, with both sides being aired fairly evenly. Understanding was that this didn't set a precedent.

Ultimately the statue should have been got rid of many moons ago and more should be done to recognise the bad things as well as the good things in the past. Take a trip to the lovely city of Nantes, the French seem to have done a better job of this sort of thing.

Anyway Cat, lets move onto the crimes that Britain made against Australia, both the indigenous population and the poor souls that got transported there (and some of the forced migrations that happened in the 20th century too). Be interested in your take.

[alex_b]

The difficulty here is we don?t actually know what the jury decided beyond the verdict.

They may have decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the statue was actually damaged (it?s now displayed in a museum in Bristol). Or they may have decided the prosecution didn?t prove that the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the people of Bristol and Bristol council wouldn?t have objected - there had been votes in favour of removing the statue. Or perhaps they decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the display of the statue wasn?t itself a public order offence. Or perhaps they didn?t agree that the prosecution had proved that a conviction would have been proportionate in light of the defendants rights under the Human Rights Act /ECHR.

This is my problem with the criticism of the verdict: the jury actually heard the evidence and the law, had multiple routes to acquittal and it was for the prosecution to make the case which they failed to do. I don?t think I or any other commentator has sufficient insight in what actually happened to determine whether the outcome was perverse or not.

I feel similarly about the acquittals of various Sun journalists for phone hacking, I think they ought to have been convicted but don?t have enough information to know why they weren?t.

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The difficulty here is we don?t actually know what

> the jury decided beyond the verdict.

>

> They may have decided that the prosecution didn?t

> prove the statue was actually damaged (it?s now

> displayed in a museum in Bristol). Or they may

> have decided the prosecution didn?t prove that the

> defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the

> people of Bristol and Bristol council wouldn?t

> have objected - there had been votes in favour of

> removing the statue. Or perhaps they decided that

> the prosecution didn?t prove the defendants didn?t

> have an honest belief that the display of the

> statue wasn?t itself a public order offence. Or

> perhaps they didn?t agree that the prosecution had

> proved that a conviction would have been

> proportionate in light of the defendants rights

> under the Human Rights Act /ECHR.

>

> This is my problem with the criticism of the

> verdict: the jury actually heard the evidence and

> the law, had multiple routes to acquittal and it

> was for the prosecution to make the case which

> they failed to do. I don?t think I or any other

> commentator has sufficient insight in what

> actually happened to determine whether the outcome

> was perverse or not.

>

> I feel similarly about the acquittals of various

> Sun journalists for phone hacking, I think they

> ought to have been convicted but don?t have enough

> information to know why they weren?t.

Thats a very good post Alex...and I agree. And my OP is guilty of what you're suggesting. So hands up!

I feel the same when I hear people talk about various cases in the public eye. Take the prince andrew/ghislane maxwell thing ("They simply must be guilty!")...before I get jumped on, im not saying at all they're innocent...im saying, sure it doesnt look good for them based on the news stories we all see, but Im not in a court room hearing all the evidence about what happened, so while its fun to pile on rich and powerful people who've probably done something wrong.....they really should be afforded the same innocent until proven guilty as the rest of us.

and in that spirit, let me celebrate the innocence of the Colston 4:)

[TheCat]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Anyway Cat, lets move onto the crimes that Britain

> made against Australia, both the indigenous

> population and the poor souls that got transported

> there (and some of the forced migrations that

> happened in the 20th century too). Be interested

> in your take.

Thats a pretty borad topic there mal!...aything you care to discuss specifically...

What I would say though is in the same ball park as things like statue removal, there have been quite a few examples of various landmarks recently returning to their aboriignal names, as opposed to the ones given when the British settled (or invaded...but lets not get into that right now)...obvioulsy the highest profile that most of the people on here would know is what was formerly known as Ayers Rock...now Uluru. That said, if the various colonial commanders from the early days of British settelment are regarfded as persona non gratia...then the entire landscape of the eastern seaboard in Australia probably needs to be renamed...go to the centre of sydney, and you cant move for streets , parks or buildings called...Cook ('discovered' australia), Phillip (commanded the 'first fleet' of settlers', and Macquarie (early Governer of the colony)......and all three of those guys have some pretty shocking examples of massacaring aborigines on their resumes....

[Nigello]

But that is eradicating history, whether it is good or bad. Think about it - you are helping to erase actual facts when you get rid of street names and the like. That could mean that the future generations, and probably only one or two down the line, could have fewer daily reference points from which to learn about the bad and the good. Talk about defeating the point! Life is not that black and white so leave things alone, on the whole, and provide context and use it as a pointer to a wider discussion so that the supposed righting of wrongs doesn't end up erasing the history that the righters are so concerned about being exposed.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think what happened in Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne recently should be expunged completely from living memory and history.

[DuncanW]

We may not be in a position to know the minutiae of the jury's deliberations. What we do know is they were asked to consider the arguments of both the prosecution and defence. They went with the defence.

The summary of the defence's case is brief and widely available.

From The Guardian:

'In closing statements following the nine-day trial, the defence had urged jurors to ?be on the right side of history?, saying the statue, which stood over the city for 125 years, was so indecent and potentially abusive that it constituted a crime.'

The defendants did not contest that they damaged the statue.

The jury deliberated for just over three hours. So it seems reasonably straightforward - albeit unusual.

What is very difficult though, near impossible, is trying to second-guess what this might mean for other real or imaginary cases. Quite obviously, if you damaged a statue of Churchill, Maggie Thatcher, Nelson Mandela or whoever - or throw a living person into Bristol Dock, this verdict would have little or no bearing.

[Jenijenjen]

Is there a statue to Margaret Thatcher in a public space? A few years ago Westminster Council were ahead of the game when they refused permission for a statue to be erected to her in Parliament Square: ?? partly due to fears about possible vandalism. It was also felt that it could become a magnet for protesters.?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/plans-margaret-thatcher-statue-westminster-rejected?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Siduhe]

There's a great article in the Times today by a senior QC (behind a paywall, so sadly can't share) but he explains why juries can and do reach conclusions that aren't obviously consistent with the law as passed by parliament in certain cases.

In this case, the prosecution told the jury that Colston?s background was entirely irrelevant to the trial and they had to disregard it. Both the jury (and the recorder) seem to have taken a different view - this was not an ordinary, criminal damage trial but one that had to be considered in context, which is the right of every jury. The QC describes it as the inalienable right of a jury of peers to put "justice before the law". You can agree or disagree with whether the decision is just or not, but I don't think there's any basis to say they didn't have the right to make the finding that they did.

[DuncanW]

Good point!! No, not currently.

It's now meant to be going up in her home-town of Grantham. The council approved it and a plinth has been built.

[alex_b]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We may not be in a position to know the minutiae

> of the jury's deliberations. What we do know is

> they were asked to consider the arguments of both

> the prosecution and defence. They went with the

> defence.

> The summary of the defence's case is brief and

> widely available.

>

> From The Guardian:

>

> 'In closing statements following the nine-day

> trial, the defence had urged jurors to ?be on the

> right side of history?, saying the statue, which

> stood over the city for 125 years, was so indecent

> and potentially abusive that it constituted a

> crime.'

>

> The defendants did not contest that they damaged

> the statue.

>

> The jury deliberated for just over three hours. So

> it seems reasonably straightforward - albeit

> unusual.

>

> What is very difficult though, near impossible, is

> trying to second-guess what this might mean for

> other real or imaginary cases. Quite obviously, if

> you damaged a statue of Churchill, Maggie

> Thatcher, Nelson Mandela or whoever - or throw a

> living person into Bristol Dock, this verdict

> would have little or no bearing.

This isn?t correct.

First in criminal law it isn?t whether the jury prefers the prosecution or defence case, it?s whether they are SURE the defendants are guilty based on the law that?s been given to them by the judge and the facts presented by both sides. They could have decided the defence was mostly talking nonsense but still weren?t sure the prosecution proved their case.

Second, the paragraph from the Guardian is only part of the defence?s case. It appears that the defendants ran multiple defences and there were at least four routes to an acquittal. We simply cannot know the reason for the decision of the jury, certainly not from a short paragraph from a newspaper.

[DuncanW]

Fair enough, I take your point.

You're absolutely right that the jurors make their own judgement on the prosecuting case being 'beyond reasonable doubt' by their own rationale. What I would underline in this case is that the defendants made no claim that they weren't physically responsible for the damage to the statue. So where does that leave us? It may not have been destroyed but it was certainly damaged.

The quote from the Guardian was meant to illustrate the central thrust of the closing argument of the defence. It wasn't presented as being the complete argument.