High Court Rules...

[MNW67]

The defendants admitted intentionally damaging the equipment and the property. Therefore, following the judge's directions below, they should have been found guilty. I am happy that, applying the law, this makes their actions criminal. Obviously, they weren't convicted. But that was a political, not a legal decision by the jury.

'Count 2: Criminal damage (all defendants)

2.1 Are you sure that property in Elbit’s premises was intentionally destroyed or damaged by one or more of the defendants?

If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.

If yes: Go to question 2.2.

2.2 Are you sure that the defendant either personally destroyed or damaged property, or encouraged or assisted another person to do so, intending that property be destroyed or damaged)?

If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.

If yes: Verdict on count 2 is “guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further'

 

[ellal]

the Jury could not reach verdicts for charges of criminal damage against all six defendants, or on the allegation that Mr Corner, 23, inflicted grievous bodily harm on Police Sergeant Kate Evans.
Nor could they reach a verdict on the charges of violent disorder against Ms Head, Mr Corner, and Ms Kamio.

glad I could help

Therefore they are not criminals because the court system says so...

Glad you agree at last

 

[ellal]

The defendants admitted intentionally damaging the equipment and the property. Therefore, following the judge's directions below, they should have been found guilty. I am happy that, applying the law, this makes their actions criminal. Obviously, they weren't convicted. But that was a political, not a legal decision by the jury.

Regardless of the reasons, they weren't found guilty in a court of law...

Which means they are not criminals, and that's all.

Do you not agree with the principle of having the right to a fair trial and to be judged by your peers?

 

[MNW67]

Regardless of the reasons, they weren't found guilty in a court of law...

Which means they are not criminals, and that's all.

Do you not agree with the principle of having the right to a fair trial and to be judged by your peers?

Of course.

But I also agree with being allowed to analyse and discuss a verdict and decide whether it had a rational legal basis or whether it was perverse.

 

[charliegolf]

criminal acts, including against civilians, intended to cause death, serious injury, or hostagetaking, with the purpose of provoking a state of terror, intimidating a population, or compelling a government to act.

What terrorist act did PA perpetrate? Damaged RAF aircraft? The alleged sledge hammer incident? They are criminal acts with more than enough common law remedies. They should never have been proscribed.

 

[ellal]

Of course.

But I also agree with being allowed to analyse and discuss a verdict and decide whether it had a rational legal basis or whether it was perverse.

You can have an opinion, but when it comes down to it this is how our legal system works...

I would suggest that those who claim that those not convicted of a crime are still criminals is a 'perverse' viewpoint!

Take that to the extreme and then why bother having trials at all?

Something that is often used as an argument against the legal systems of 'third world' countries and calling them 'uncivilised'!

 

[charliegolf]

Of course.

But I also agree with being allowed to analyse and discuss a verdict and decide whether it had a rational legal basis or whether it was perverse.

Perverse verdict is grounds for appeal by the alleged crim or the government.

 

[motorbiking]

Regardless of the reasons, they weren't found guilty in a court of law...

Which means they are not criminals, and that's all.

Criminals belonging to a criminal organisation committing criminal acts.

I could understand the argument if they’d been acquitted of all charges.

 

[motorbiking]

What terrorist act did PA perpetrate? Damaged RAF aircraft? The alleged sledge hammer incident? They are criminal acts with more than enough common law remedies. They should never have been proscribed.

I agree - just a bunch of loonies who need locking up for committing.serious crimes.

 

[MNW67]

You can have an opinion, but when it comes down to it this is how our legal system works...

I would suggest that those who claim that those not convicted of a crime are still criminals is a 'perverse' viewpoint!

Take that to the extreme and then why bother having trials at all?

Something that is often used as an argument against the legal systems of 'third world' countries and calling them 'uncivilised'!

You are throwing in a lot of straw men.

This is how I would break it down:

The defendants admitted that they intentionally damaged the property.

The judge instructed the jury that these actions met the standard for the crime of criminal damage.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendants had no legal defence under English law.

However, the jury failed to reach a verdict. We need to look logically at the possible reasons why this happened.

Presumably, the jury accepted the defendants' admissions that they carried out those actions.

Presumably, the jury accepted the judge's guidance that none of the defences they put forward were legal under English law.

So, the only logical conclusion is that the jury must have based their decision on matters that had no legal basis.

 

[ellal]

Criminals belonging to a criminal organisation committing criminal acts.

I could understand the argument if they’d been acquitted of all charges.

Your credibility rating is now at rock bottom...

Which bit of 'they weren't found guilty of any crime' do you not understand?

And given the decision that the act of proscribing has been ruled unlawful, what 'criminal organisation' are you referring to?

 

[ellal]

You are throwing in a lot of straw men.

This is how I would break it down:

The defendants admitted that they intentionally damaged the property.

The judge instructed the jury that these actions met the standard for the crime of criminal damage.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendants had no legal defence under English law.

However, the jury failed to reach a verdict. We need to look logically at the possible reasons why this happened.

Presumably, the jury accepted the defendants' admissions that they carried out those actions.

Presumably, the jury accepted the judge's guidance that none of the defences they put forward were legal under English law.

So, the only logical conclusion is that the jury must have based their decision on matters that had no legal basis.

Nope...

I'm saying that this is the legal system we have and that system didn't find them guilty...

They are in the eyes of the law not criminals...

As I said you can have an opinion, but you can't change the outcome of the trial.

There are of course avenues of appeal, but that applies to both sides.

 

[motorbiking]

And given the decision that the act of proscribing has been ruled unlawful, what 'criminal organisation' are you referring to?

Read sec 21 of the Judgement.

 

[morqthana]

We aren't.

Exactly.

And what about the rest of my post, which you seem to be ignoring?

Do you accept that in times of war it is OK to attack military assets? It's a simple enough question, and we don't have to be at war for you to answer it.

Or do you still think that NOTHING can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully?

 

[motorbiking]

And what about the rest of my post, which you seem to be ignoring?

It was irrelevant, we aren't at War, we aren't occupied by a foreign rogue state and need to mount a resistance and those committing the crimes could not be described as combatants.

Therefore it remains the case that "Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully?"