The Colston 4

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond reasonable doubt"...

But in any case a jury has always had a right not to convict. Jury nullification is a check on the law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no way the jury didn't think the elements of the offence weren't proven - they just didn't want to convict the defendants. This verdict has zero precedential value. It's just the latest example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[TheCat]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> 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.

have another read Nigello. I wassnt advocating at all for these changes to be made.

I was highlighting that if this is the direction that society goes...then we would have to start changing a lot more than just the odd statue or landmark name here ot there....

[TheCat]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> I think what happened in Brisbane, Adelaide and

> Melbourne recently should be expunged completely

> from living memory and history.

the way things are going, looks like you might have to add Sydney to that list:)

[TheCat]

Pure speculation, having read the discussion above....

The defendents admitted to damaging the statue...so they basically 'plead guilty' to damaging it.

BUT, what they were charged with was was 'criminal damage', so the question the jury may have been asked to consider is the extent to which the damage was 'criminal'...?

maybe some form of lesser/civil charge related to the damage might have gone a different way?

As I say, thats just me thinking out loud

[DuncanW]

Cat - would you like to have seen them convicted of something?

[alex_b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond

> reasonable doubt"...

>

> But in any case a jury has always had a right not

> to convict. Jury nullification is a check on the

> law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no way

> the jury didn't think the elements of the offence

> weren't proven - they just didn't want to convict

> the defendants. This verdict has zero precedential

> value. It's just the latest example.

>

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

It?s generally ?sure? in jury directions not ?beyond a reasonable doubt? which is not longer the standard direction. https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/?fdx_switcher=true

[alex_b]

TheCat Wrote:

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

> Pure speculation, having read the discussion

> above....

>

> The defendents admitted to damaging the

> statue...so they basically 'plead guilty' to

> damaging it.

>

> BUT, what they were charged with was was 'criminal

> damage', so the question the jury may have been

> asked to consider is the extent to which the

> damage was 'criminal'...?

>

> maybe some form of lesser/civil charge related to

> the damage might have gone a different way?

>

> As I say, thats just me thinking out loud

I don?t know if they precisely admitted damage. They didn?t deny the statue was pulled down by them and others, but did the prosecution prove this caused damage (it?s now on display in a museum). Then as you rightly say the prosecution needed to prove the damage was criminal and that various defences didn?t apply. That?s why without the jury directions and all of the evidence it?s hard to know much about why the jury reached the verdict they did.

[JohnL]

Attorney General is looking at some sort of appeal where judges direct the jury but juries don't have to follow direction of the judge anyway.

The secret barrister had a good thread on this earlier.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

[TheCat]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> Cat - would you like to have seen them convicted

> of something?

Dunno...I would just like to understand better what happened, what the thinking/arguements were.

It's fair to say that if they had been found guilty, I don't think it would have made much of a splash...'people would have said, "well, they pulled it down...So that seems to make sense"...but the fact it went the other way does raise questions, and at surface level seems intriguing....

Why do you ask?

[j.a.]

Cat,

The Secret Barrister thread that JohnL linked to will answer most if not all of your questions.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just red that thread by the Secret Barrister ?. It?s an excellent, and very clear appraisal of the issues. Thanks for sharing.

[TheCat]

Thanks for that link too. Very measured and informative.

Fascinating how this played out in left versus right. On face value, one might think that you could agree with the intention, but not the method.

Perhaps if they'd have been charged with a civil offence, where they had to pay the people of Bristol for the cost of recovery...it would have been different

[zenoria65]

Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist - ergo any statue commemorating him should be torn down and thrown in the nearest waterway.....

[TheCat]

Fascinating that this has become a left v right argument. It shouldn't have been.....

[diable rouge]

Someone hand zenoria65 a dictionary so they can look-up the meaning of the word context...

[alex_b]

The jury directions have been published and make very instructive reading. It appears that none of the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and that was a decision for the jury to make. https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

[SpringTime]

They should have taken care with that statue and carried it to a museum.

[JohnL]

They did it was Davey Jones museum

[JohnL]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> The jury directions have been published and make

> very instructive reading. It appears that none of

> the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and

> that was a decision for the jury to make.

> https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-su

> mming-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

It has actually increased in value by several multiples - as it is now historical.

https://news.sky.com/story/edward-colston-statue-toppled-artwork-now-worth-300-000-50-times-its-original-value-12510440

[DuncanW]

There's a lot to read on the subject - it might be slightly less time-consuming to have attended the actual trial :)

I found it interesting that the same barrister blogger who details the legal routes to a not guilty verdict after the trial, posted this beforehand:

https://barristerblogger.com/2020/06/08/the-colston-statue-destroyers-have-no-defence-in-law-but-they-will-never-be-convicted/

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond

> > reasonable doubt"...

> >

> > But in any case a jury has always had a right

> not

> > to convict. Jury nullification is a check on

> the

> > law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no

> way

> > the jury didn't think the elements of the

> offence

> > weren't proven - they just didn't want to

> convict

> > the defendants. This verdict has zero

> precedential

> > value. It's just the latest example.

> >

> >

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

>

>

>

> It?s generally ?sure? in jury directions not

> ?beyond a reasonable doubt? which is not longer

> the standard direction.

> https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standa

> rd-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-r

> ight-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/?fdx_switcher=true

You're absolutely right and I apologise for "correcting" you, and thank you for sharing that blog post that was very interesting.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

alex_b Wrote:

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

> The jury directions have been published and make

> very instructive reading. It appears that none of

> the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and

> that was a decision for the jury to make.

> https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-su

> mming-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

I mean obviously they're not going to admit any element of the offence, but clearly the statue was damaged. "'Damage' is interpreted widely to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness". It was yanked down and chucked in the dock, and it was all on video. The whole point of the exercise was to permanently impair its value and usefulness as a monument to an awful person! The facts of the case were never really the issue.

[JohnL]

Whatever the judge directs or the evidence is the Jury still have an right to acquit for whatever reason they see fit.

Do people feel we should change that ?

[alex_b]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Whatever the judge directs or the evidence is the

> Jury still have an right to acquit for whatever

> reason they see fit.

>

> Do people feel we should change that ?

Realistically how would one do that? It seems you?d be bound to wind up substantially undermining the jury process. That said I would be supportive of juries publishing their reasons for the verdict, even just ticks or crosses against the judge?s directions. I?d also like to see more transparency and research into jury decisions which is currently illegal.