Not in the public interest

[SueEllen]

No, as they were acquitted then the law hasn't been properly applied in this case. The jury couldn't reach a majorty verdict and it's hardly surprising. The whole lot of them would have been targetted and called racist if they had. The decision was made on opinions and fear not the law.

I though jury rooms, who is on a particular jury and how jurors come to their conclusions are all confidential in the UK?

You can't argue they did the right thing as half the people in the subsequent poles either said it shouldn't have been taken down or if so not like that. So only half the people agree it was right. That's not enough.

I can because the jury, made up of people who were told to see if the law applied in their cases, acquitted them.

Either way, if the did do it then they should pay for the repairs and recover costs at the very least. They did it so they should be held responsible.

Nope because they were acquitted by a jury.

[SueEllen]

If you have a lawful excuse you can commit criminal damage but you have to prove that lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...of-culture-war

However, legal experts have pointed out the law does allow property to be damaged if there is “a lawful excuse”. The Colston verdict follows similar cases where juries have found environmental and anti-war campaigners were justified in damaging property to prevent greater crimes

[malvolio]

If you have a lawful excuse you can commit criminal damage but you have to prove that lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...of-culture-war

So exactly what greater crime has been prevented by the destruction of a statue to someone who died in 1721? Offending some under-educated idiot's sensibilities perhaps? Not really sure that is a criminal act.

Or preventing a riot developing from a protest march around the representation of someone who died in 1721 leading to the destruction of public property? Oh, hang on...

The jury's decision may well be correct: in fact, it has to be, since they made it and that isn't going to change. The law behind it though, that's another question.

[Lance]

I'll just leave this here in the name of balance.

[northernladuk]

Interesting to see if these spurs other mobs to remove statues and someone gets hurt or killed doing it.

[WTFH]

It's a slippery slope.
5 year ago, according to the far right, judges were the "enemies of the people". Now juries are the enemy of the people. It's almost like when a judgement goes against the reicht, they get upset and call those passing judgement enemies.

[SueEllen]

It's a slippery slope.
5 year ago, according to the far right, judges were the "enemies of the people". Now juries are the enemy of the people. It's almost like when a judgement goes against the reicht, they get upset and call those passing judgement enemies.

The 1996 case was the first case I became aware of where this reasonable excuse was used to get off criminal damage charge by having the case argued in front of a jury. Apparently since then lots of campaigners, particularly environmental and anti-war, have got off using it. In each case they have had to show that the campaign was an ongoing one and their act criminal was their last resort.

Reading the left of centre press coverage over the weekend it appears that every single campaigner/group tries to cause over £5k of damage to ensure they can have a jury trial. The new police and criminal justice bill will make it worse as they don't need to cause that amount of damage. So it means more jury trials....