I was called up for jury service in the early 90s. I was in my mid 20s. After hearing the evidence in the first case I was assigned to, the jury retired to deliberate.
A middle-aged man volunteered to be the foreman of the jury; I and the other 10 were quite happy for him to take the role.
Once that was agreed, he asked: “Who doesn’t think the defendant is guilty?”
One juror made some comments but was soon made to see he was wrong and we all agreed vey quickly on the guilty verdict and called the clerk.
The reason for sharing this story is to hopefully shed some light on the recent decision to acquit the Extinction Rebellion activists of criminal damage at Southwark Crown Court last week despite the video evidence showing them damaging windows at HSBC’s offices.
I can only speculate but I would not be surprised if one or two members of the jury were either members of a climate activist group or work in a sector or department of a company that concerns itself with the ‘climate catastrophe’. They could just be someone that only uses the BBC for their information.
As evidenced by my own experience, it would not take much for a vocal member of the jury to volunteer himself as foreman and push the jury to the verdict that he himself wants.
The fact that this jury made requests including an explanation of the Paris Climate Agreement and information on what the British Government has done to address the climate crisis suggests there may have been some dissenting jurors that needed to be persuaded to agree to acquit.
I have not seen it reported that the jury requested any information that may have countered the idea that there is a climate crisis which would indicate that the jury was being led by someone sympathetic to the defendant’s cause.
If the jury decided to acquit based on the assumption that the defendant’s actions were necessary to prevent the world ending, why didn’t it request any information that opposed this idea in order to have a balanced view?
Why did the jury not ask for information about the additional emissions that would be generated by the manufacture, transportation and replacement of the broken windows?
If the defendants really believed that emissions were about to send the planet over the edge surely they would be too scared to increase them by even the tiniest amount?
These questions don’t appear to have been asked, which leads me to think that it is not speculation on my part.
This jury’s decision will no doubt lead to other activists damaging property in the name of their particular cause, with the expectation that a jury will acquit them too. But there will be a group in future that will be shocked to be found guilty as the one or two vocal jurors in their case are totally unsympathetic.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A useful observation. Yesterday, when this verdict came up on this site, I made a cynical comment that whoever the defence barrister was will be quids in. Unless they operate in a cab rank regime, many will want him/her on their side!
I had understood that the Crown could appeal any decision that was clearly mistaken.
Perhaps the CPS should reconsider the quality of barristers they use.
I served on a jury more recently than the 1990s. Certain jurors were obsessed about a particular item mentioned briefly in evidence and asked the judge what had happened to it. The judge, rightly in my view, told them to consider the case on evidence presented not on what they would like to know.
Sadly in my case the accused was not found guilty even though everyone in the jury room agreed he did it. Afterwards his barrister could be seen telling him not to do again what he had just been acquired of.
I agree with this it disturbed me whenI served on a jury, the things I heard and saw. Quite frightening and I remember wondering if a jury the best way to deal with things. You could say that it is the fairest but fairness means nothing if it is universally rubbish. In an age of advanced propaganda and ignorance worship even more so. But what can you do – any alternative means that someone chooses the watchers and who watches the watchers.Of course a jury only needs to have one dissenting member but this is worthless when you consider the dynamics of the situation. For one thing most jurists are sick and tired of attending the trial by the time it comes to their decision and will agree on things just to get home and back to normal more quickly.
I can’t speak for most jurists but when I was on a jury which did not convict for GBH even though I thought the defendant was guilty, my rationalisation was that to acquit a guilty person was better than convicting an innocent one. I still think that’s right but it still worries me about that particular case. In that case it became apparent that no consensus would be found among the jury for a guilty verdict – so it was time to move on.
I served on a jury where 12 witnesses to an assault were called to give evidence. Each one claimed they did not see the person alleged of assault kick the supposed victim. Even the alleged victim said he did not see who the person was who kicked him. Remember this was in an open area with 20 or 30 people all around. So why were they called as witnesses? Then when none of those people could identify the assailant, not even the alleged victim, it was left to the jury to decide. ——–I said to myself why should me, a person that was not even there at the time and who saw nothing make a decision on who is guilty when those present were not prepared to?
In my experience juries are presented with conflicting opinions from expert witnesses who argue whether the defendant’s or the “victim’s” recollections of what may or may not have happened in under the old oak tree in 1959 have been so addled by dementia that their testimony is unreliable. These days the judges are not allowed to introduce the concept of delusional fantasies in summarised cases, so the case winds up as an expensive beauty contest between the teams of expert witnesses.
I detect a similar trend in other fields, in which experts are paid to dazzle juries with their supposed insight into the behaviour of humans, the climate and viruses.
On the whole I support the concept of “jury nullification” but cases like this make me waver.
This article reminds me of the classic Hancock’s Half Hour parody of 12 Angry Men:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48w3iu
A brilliant film and perhaps too sophisticated for the current generation left wing activists. In addition to the main plot line was the backdrop of the intolerable heat. I recall how the jury complained about how hot it was, something that the climate crazies might find incomprehensible because it was never that hot in the past.
In contrast, there was this:
‘Two Just Stop Oil protesters who scaled the Dartford Crossing bridge have been jailed.
Morgan Trowland, 40, of Islington, north London, and Marcus Decker, 34, of no fixed address, were suspended over the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge for about 37 hours in October.
The pair argued during the trial it was a peaceful protest but were found guilty of causing a public nuisance.
Trowland was jailed for three years and Decker for two years and seven months.
Judge Shane Collery KC said the pair “plainly believed you knew better” than other people and were thinking “to hell with everyone else”.
“You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you,” he said, as he sentenced them at Southend Crown Court.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65263650
There is an election in the offing and the Tories hope to scrape together a few votes by opposing Silly Khant’s ULEZ scheme.
That tactic would have crashed and burned if these R.souls had been acquitted. By contrast, few people will sob into their pillows about HSBC’s losses.
Fear not. Once the election is over, these Dartford Crossing “protestors” will amazingly be pardoned and likely given seats in the House of Lords.
“That tactic would have crashed and burned if these R.souls had been acquitted. By contrast, few people will sob into their pillows about HSBC’s losses.”
Indeed. But this decision legitimizes criminal damage. Where does that end?
And today this came up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo with the UN criticising the punishment.
Sod the UN! Bunch of west-hating, communists and religion-of-peace mongers
If we do not stop pandering to these brainwashed dreamers then they are simply going to become more and more emboldened. This country is already on a path to NET ZERO and is doing more on this issue than most other countries. We cannot have ideologically motivated misinformed dreamers dictating energy policies. We need to nip this in the bud NOW
Yes I get where the author’s coming from if there is anything remotely ambiguous put forward that is passed off as ”evidence” but there is nothing ambiguous at all about video footage of these deluded idiots actually committing vandalism to a property, therefore I don’t see how it’s possible for a jury to be manipulated into passing a verdict which is anything other than what the evidence showed. I mean, how can any sane person contradict actual evidence of people in the act of breaking the law??
So now we have a situation where the bar is set, this sends out a message nationwide that it’s totally okay to go ahead and vandalize your chosen property, graffiti and desecrate memorials and important statues/landmarks, you name it, you can do it, just so long as you break the law in the name of a specified cause/narrative then it’s all good. Zero deterrent, zero consequences. So that’s nice for the yobs and chavs isn’t it? And what role models these stupid bints represent for their own kids and others wishing to emulate them in future. It’s absolutely shameful, it really is.
Meanwhile, this is the sort of treatment one can expect should you speak out against a protest that is anti-West. Free speech being non-existent if you don’t toe the leftie line. Plus, I think he’s the ‘wrong’ colour;
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1726400335625740611
I wholeheartedly agree Mogs. What this case boils down to is ‘criminal damage.’
Did the accused commit criminal damage?
Yes they did. Case closed.
Guilty.
Send ’em down.
But you don’t send down your own useful idiots. —You need them to keep your phony pretend to save the planet policies in the public eye and have the excuses for forcing unaffordable unreliable energy on us so you can get a little gold star on your lapel from the one world government people at the UN
I thought it was held that the defendants were justified in causing the damage, so they were not guilty. There is a need for urgent legislation in that case or we are all legitimate targets.
Hopefully they won’t breed because they believe we are doomed and that white people breeding is dangerous for the environment and diversity and inclusion. Thick as planks, really. Evidence that we are getting stupider in the west, not cleverer.
There is absolutely no point in complaining about the stupidity of other people. As a teacher of mine said, tha there are stupid people in the world is their problem but when you start to consider them they become your problem. Yes they affect our reality and in benighted times they rise to power but just think about the fruitlessness of being concerned with stupidty. You may as well give a dog a string of sausages and tell him to save half of them for next week. The point is that that there are immense hidden depths of intelligence and guile and insight in this country. And it is the habit of masters to hide themselves away from the public. You have to allow the possibility of a world where reality is the opposite of the ostentatious.
My interpretation of the request for explanation of the Paris “Treaty” (which it wasn’t) and what the Government has done since; is absolutely different.
This will have been done by a juror who wanted to promote the Extinction Rebellion position that the Government has done “nothing” of significance to avoid the oceans boiling and a Great Extinction event. Not to mention MET office measuring warmth when adjacent Typhoon jets are taking off. So they were absolutely justified in their actions, ‘cos they was saving the planet, innit?’
Further evidence that jury selection, the “prosecution” and the selected Judge were all set up to guarantee a not guilty verdict.
Let’s be honest. Apart from the Daily Sceptic’s trolls, almost anyone who comes on here could have pointed out that the “Climate Emergency” is utter, infantile bollocks. And could have called genuine scientists to rubbish ER’s virtue signalling poppycock.
Note that I don’t blame the defence – they obviously did their job, which was to defend. But the “Prosecution” needs to be behind bars. After all, any rational appraisal of Government actions this Century would clearly show the tens of billions of our money they have wasted on this scam. Hard to see how much more they could have done to support ER and screw over the rest of us.
A crisis cult isn’t entirely misdirected but it will find a way to manifest its neurosis in the physical world. Carbon dioxide is an interesting choice. I suspect because given scientific antecedent such as the examination of the greenhousr effect on Venus it was found to be an idea rich for exploitation.If you tune into the spirit you will see the exact year and month in the 1980s when it happened.I am just telling you straight when it blew in. We who are still alive now we need to take care of things.
CO2 is also the one gas that can be directly tied to Industrial Capitalism. The rich emit the most, the poor emit the least. The CO2 is therefore the commy bureaucrats dream gas that allows them to implement policies they have long craved such as carbon taxes and assorted wealth redistribution policies with climate as the excuse.
Many years ago I found myself doing Jury Service at Kingston Crown Court. I joined a bunch of jurors who had tried other cases already and having lost their previous foreman they elected me. I should have been worried but was new to the game. We tried a GBH case where a girl’s boyfriend had beaten up her husband when he objected to the arrangement. We retired and the first vote was 10-2 guilty. A woman d’un certain âge thought the boyfriend looked too nice. Half an hour later we were still at it and I was required to tell the jury bailiff that we would be sitting through lunch and would need refreshments sent in. When I said that was what I was off to do, said lady then threw up her arms in horror and said “Oh NO! Not those bloody ham & cheese sandwiches again! Ok – he’s guilty”. Her friend followed. We were home for tea.
What they believed is irrelevant. Did they or did they not commit criminal damage to someone’s property? The answer is yes. The judge should have directed the jury to only focus on that part of the law. The judge is clearly biased and not fit to do their job and should be barred.
The next stop in such legal madness is murder: I killed this person your honour because their actions are going to lead to climate disaster.
We live in an utterly bizarre, lazy-thinking, stupid, ignorant society that deserves to be destroyed so we can rebuild it
Maybe HSBC can bring a civil prosecution for damage against the group. Lower bar for conviction, I believe? If they could get damages they might bankrupt the little communist green, middle class w4nkers. But I suspect that HSBC would avoid this because of bad publicity and them being seen as the big, bad capitalist attacking the small, brave, climate freedom fighters. Cowards, of course.
We should be more Javier Milei about these things; crush the leftists!
If a private prosecution were brought it would be “legally adopted” by the Crown Prosecution Service who would then drop it A . civil claim for damages would bypass a jury.
Under this way of thinking I should be able to haul you from your 4×4 and set it alight all for the children and grandchildren because your car is “adding to climate change”———-There must be no Social Justice, only Equal Justice for all. We cannot have decisions based on popular belief that is only popular because most people are too busy to properly investigate it for themselves and simply accept the group think and what they see on the Telly. —You either smashed the glass or you didn’t and if you smashed the glass you are GUILTY
The judiciary is gone. People need to understand that all the institutions we relied on have been infected with Woke-23.