At the time of the Iraq invasion, five protesters broke into RAF Fairford with the aim of damaging B52 bombers or disabling support vehicles. They were carrying equipment that could cut brake lines and one of them had a homemade incendiary device.
www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk
Perhaps it has been, at least until now. As you say, probably due to jury ignorance. However, with the publicity this will receive and the rapid dissemination via social media, expect it to become more common. Easy to see how juries with a more nefarious motivation might misuse this option.It’s called jury equity and has been enshrined in common law since at least 1649. Put simply, no jury can be directed to find a defendant guilty and, as such, a jury is entitled to find a defendant not guilty regardless of whether the evidence against them is overwhelming and for whatever reason they like.
As it’s been around for nearly 400 years and most people have still never heard of it, if it’s slippery slope then it’s the most gentle downhill slope on the planet.
Jury Equity - A verdict of conscience - BSB Solicitors
The recent case of HM Solicitor General v Trudi Warner has shone a light on a little-known but now increasingly prominent issue of “jury equity”. The issue is neatly summarised in this part of the judgment: The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental group Insulate...
I've never served on a jury but I'd expect to be given all the information required to do so when being called.
Do you think “juries with a nefarious motivation” are a significant problem? Be pretty unlikely to select 12 nefarious people at random I would have thought.
www.thejusticegap.com
In the case that I alluded to, the barrister actually argued that the law was broken but the moral cause was more important.
Thanks, that’s really interesting reading in an area of which I knew practically nothing. To answer your question, I think the ubiquity of social media will make this a more visible defence than has been the case to date.Do you think “juries with a nefarious motivation” are a significant problem? Be pretty unlikely to select 12 nefarious people at random I would have thought.
There wasn’t a sudden spike in such verdicts following the Clive Ponting case in 1985. Bearing in mind that his case was about the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War, which was one of the biggest stories in this country during the 1980s, he’d admitted leaking official secrets and the judge stated he had “no defence”. If there wasn’t an increase after that case, I see no reason for there to be one now.
‘Not only a right, but a duty’: A history of perverse verdicts – The Justice Gap
My understanding is that in this case the defendants were simply cleared by the jury, not because of the 'defence' they argued.
Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction
Six activists are acquitted of causing criminal damage despite a judge saying they had "no defence".www.bbc.co.uk
True, but the genuine reasons for acquittal don’t have to be made overt by the jury. My concern is that, in future, juries that are sympathetic to the views of the defendant, will simply clear them, irrespective of the evidence and law.
Precisely this.
As I understand it that individual hasn’t.
Depends if it fits in with your beliefs. If it doesn’t, then everybody else must be wrong
I’m not sure I understand that. Would you please elucidate a little. I’m old enough to know that things aren’t that simple. I certainly don’t believe that everybody who disagrees with me is wrong, merely that they hold a different belief.
If a jury is sympathetic to the views of the defendant such that a majority of them won't declare for guilty then that's the system working as intended. Why are you concerned about this right now? What is your actual concern? My biggest concern is that people on a Jury might not be being told about all the options available to them.
'Colston Four' BLM statue toppling in Bristol (2022) and Extinction Rebellion/Shell HQ (2021) are examples of more recent cases.
Is it the system working as intended? I don’t agree. If someone has broken the law, then they are guilty. Just because the jury is sympathetic to their crime doesn’t absolve them of that crime. To extrapolate a little, perhaps we should not bother to have juries, but just take a straw poll to see if people are guilty. I think you are being a little naive if you think this is justice. Yes, it’s fine while you agree with the jury’s verdict, but what happens when the jury is racist, sexist or homophobic. That is not difficult to do, is it?