Contempt of court for holding up a sign outside courtrooms?
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/pr...
I have no idea of the law here, but it seems a little draconian to say the least.
Seems our right to peaceful protest is being slowly eroded?
I have no idea of the law here, but it seems a little draconian to say the least.
Seems our right to peaceful protest is being slowly eroded?
Saw this today too. It's been rumbling a while, but like a lot of things took time to catch.
Short version - I'm glad it's coming out. We either trust the jury system, or we don't. We either allow our peers to judge us, or we just have a politician telling a judge telling the jurors what they can think.
Shame bv has gone - he would have been all over this.
Slightly longer summary as I see it (non lawyer)
- climate protestors getting let off by sympathetic (reasonable?) jury of peers using climate as reasonable grounds to break law.
- daily mail/PH - boo that's not justice. You can't use climate as a defence
- government - comes up with a completely foolproof way to stop this happening. They simply direct judges to not allow anyone to mention "climate" as a defence. Job jobbed!
- except they do keep mentioning it, the naughty rascals. So they get jailed for contempt of court, because there are some words you are not allowed to say, or opinions you are not allowed to have in our free country apparently.
- this is now extended to holding up placards where people going in/out of court can't avoid seeing. Ie perverting course of justice ultimately.
As the solicitors says in the article, he's glad this is being exposed finally.
I've never been on a jury, but if the judge told me I can't find people not guilty because they believed their actions were justified for a reason an MP doesn't want me to hear, I'd be damn well tempted to do exactly that out of bloody-mindedness.
Short version - I'm glad it's coming out. We either trust the jury system, or we don't. We either allow our peers to judge us, or we just have a politician telling a judge telling the jurors what they can think.
Shame bv has gone - he would have been all over this.
Slightly longer summary as I see it (non lawyer)
- climate protestors getting let off by sympathetic (reasonable?) jury of peers using climate as reasonable grounds to break law.
- daily mail/PH - boo that's not justice. You can't use climate as a defence
- government - comes up with a completely foolproof way to stop this happening. They simply direct judges to not allow anyone to mention "climate" as a defence. Job jobbed!
- except they do keep mentioning it, the naughty rascals. So they get jailed for contempt of court, because there are some words you are not allowed to say, or opinions you are not allowed to have in our free country apparently.
- this is now extended to holding up placards where people going in/out of court can't avoid seeing. Ie perverting course of justice ultimately.
As the solicitors says in the article, he's glad this is being exposed finally.
I've never been on a jury, but if the judge told me I can't find people not guilty because they believed their actions were justified for a reason an MP doesn't want me to hear, I'd be damn well tempted to do exactly that out of bloody-mindedness.
And now we can do the whataboutery test.
Swap climate for sex with a minor, and climate protest for pedo. (Obviously I've chosen something controversial - has no bearing on the case)
Does it still stand up?
Yes. A pedo should be able to say they had a deeply held belief that guided their actions. They could say it to the jury, and rely on that jury to judge them accordingly.
They could have supporters holding placards outside- fine, though I think Rolf's dead and Gary is busy at the mo.
If the subject was, say, terrorism or extremism, then the placards could fall under hate or obscenity laws, and be removed. Fine.
But this all looks toe like the attorney general lurching from one crap decision to the next, with no plan and not realising the consequences they're creating.
Swap climate for sex with a minor, and climate protest for pedo. (Obviously I've chosen something controversial - has no bearing on the case)
Does it still stand up?
Yes. A pedo should be able to say they had a deeply held belief that guided their actions. They could say it to the jury, and rely on that jury to judge them accordingly.
They could have supporters holding placards outside- fine, though I think Rolf's dead and Gary is busy at the mo.
If the subject was, say, terrorism or extremism, then the placards could fall under hate or obscenity laws, and be removed. Fine.
But this all looks toe like the attorney general lurching from one crap decision to the next, with no plan and not realising the consequences they're creating.
From the Guardian:
Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
Attempting to influence jurors seems pretty clear cut to me. Whether a juror saw the sign isn’t the point - she evidently hoped some of them might, otherwise she wouldn’t have been sat there with that sign.
Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
Attempting to influence jurors seems pretty clear cut to me. Whether a juror saw the sign isn’t the point - she evidently hoped some of them might, otherwise she wouldn’t have been sat there with that sign.
Ian Geary said:
And now we can do the whataboutery test.
Swap climate for sex with a minor, and climate protest for pedo. (Obviously I've chosen something controversial - has no bearing on the case)
Does it still stand up?
Yes. A pedo should be able to say they had a deeply held belief that guided their actions. They could say it to the jury, and rely on that jury to judge them accordingly.
They could have supporters holding placards outside- fine, though I think Rolf's dead and Gary is busy at the mo.
If the subject was, say, terrorism or extremism, then the placards could fall under hate or obscenity laws, and be removed. Fine.
But this all looks toe like the attorney general lurching from one crap decision to the next, with no plan and not realising the consequences they're creating.
I think you have it completely the wrong way up. Its not about the AG lurching from one crap decision to the next . Its more the general public think they can involve themselves in anything they like that doesn't have anything to do with them. Its a court of law and certain rules apply. If you want to push the boundaries and stick your nose in where it is not wanted and ignore said rules , then you deserve everything coming your way. A retired social worker eh ............ Why am I not surprised.Swap climate for sex with a minor, and climate protest for pedo. (Obviously I've chosen something controversial - has no bearing on the case)
Does it still stand up?
Yes. A pedo should be able to say they had a deeply held belief that guided their actions. They could say it to the jury, and rely on that jury to judge them accordingly.
They could have supporters holding placards outside- fine, though I think Rolf's dead and Gary is busy at the mo.
If the subject was, say, terrorism or extremism, then the placards could fall under hate or obscenity laws, and be removed. Fine.
But this all looks toe like the attorney general lurching from one crap decision to the next, with no plan and not realising the consequences they're creating.
vaud said:
Surely context is everything.
Standing at speakers corner with the poster and talking about it is freedom of speech.
Standing outside a court carries a different context and they should be entirely neutral zones with no influence from anyone on any topic (in my view)
Standing outside court should be fine too, the distinction would be are you holding up the placards to influence the press reporting, or are you holding it up to try to influence the Jury? The latter is a clear contempt of Court because it undermines the ability to serve justice. You would hope that the details of this case are that they did it when the Jury were entering and they knew that to be the case.Standing at speakers corner with the poster and talking about it is freedom of speech.
Standing outside a court carries a different context and they should be entirely neutral zones with no influence from anyone on any topic (in my view)
The people already jailed for contempt of court were directed not to mention Climate Change in their mitigation because it had been dealt with extensively during the case and was 'evidence' that was already ruled as irrelevant to the question of Law at hand. It simply wasn't either a defense to the charges, or a mitigation, so there is no issue with the Judge clarifying that and creating the opportunity for contempt. The waters have been muddied recently by other cases where the law was simply not followed.
The same protestors are afforded the same opportunity as the rest of us to influence policy get the law changed and that is the correct vehicle for these issue to be addressed. The problem is that it is not something that has society's support - See Caroline Lucas for details - but that's just the way it goes for all of us.
The legal route is to appeal against the court's decision to not allow freedom of expression as a defence. Defying the court may be morally justified as the public nuisance may have been, but the consequence of civil disobedience is usally a prosecution.
Nothing much to see here. Jury members are still free to make a decision based on their consciences rather than the direction of the judge.
Nothing much to see here. Jury members are still free to make a decision based on their consciences rather than the direction of the judge.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Indeed, and having been on a jury for something serious earlier this year, I can definitely say attempting to influence a jury in any way is taken extremely seriously. Even between jury members themselves.
I don’t really have a problem with the judge directing the witnesses in what they can and cannot say. All evidence and testimony introduced in any case is carefully curated to present the case in such a way as the prosecution and defence want. I don’t see this as being any different. The jury were still able to find the defendants not guilty or acquit if they wanted to based on the evidence presented. Which is how it should be.
And one thing I would say…. I’ll never again believe what I read in the press about any court case. When the trial I was on concluded I went back and read the news reports written during the case. The way testimony and evidence was presented in the papers was very different from what I heard myself in court. The only true way you can know what happened in a case and who said what, is to go and sit in the gallery.
It wasn't witnesses but the defendants. - "She protested after a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change, insulation, fuel poverty or their motivations for taking action during their trials."I don’t really have a problem with the judge directing the witnesses in what they can and cannot say. All evidence and testimony introduced in any case is carefully curated to present the case in such a way as the prosecution and defence want. I don’t see this as being any different. The jury were still able to find the defendants not guilty or acquit if they wanted to based on the evidence presented. Which is how it should be.
And one thing I would say…. I’ll never again believe what I read in the press about any court case. When the trial I was on concluded I went back and read the news reports written during the case. The way testimony and evidence was presented in the papers was very different from what I heard myself in court. The only true way you can know what happened in a case and who said what, is to go and sit in the gallery.
IMHO this in its own right should require significant investigation; The crimes they are being charged for do have defences concerning justification. Last I checked, the highest criminal court in the land ruled that the protestors who blocked access roads when an arms dealing conference was going on were legal on the basis that it fit within human rights laws on right to protest. Hence these are CRITICAL topics for the court to consider. If the court is concerned they will use it for a soapbox then it has plenty of other means to deal with that (It can tightly restrict press coverage for example. It could probably also time limit parts of proceedings)
However placards outside the court in an attempt to manipulate juries is a resonable reason to prosecute. The problem is that while in this case it is relatively harmless, what happens when it is a criminal gangs enforcers stood outside the court with placards... Juries have to go in and out, so you can't allow protestors to potentially threaten them - allowing anything leads to a slippery slope. I would however hope protesters were warned to move on at the the time.
If you want to protest that they have allowed unresonable actions by the judge, you could protest outside the Supreme Court or HoP, (or several other London Landmarks with a historical connection to the UK justice system.) You don't need to protest outside the court handling the cases.
Far Cough said:
I think you have it completely the wrong way up. Its not about the AG lurching from one crap decision to the next . Its more the general public think they can involve themselves in anything they like that doesn't have anything to do with them. Its a court of law and certain rules apply. If you want to push the boundaries and stick your nose in where it is not wanted and ignore said rules , then you deserve everything coming your way. A retired social worker eh ............ Why am I not surprised.
(Social workers stick their nose into other people's business because some people just come out wrong, and are not fit to be responsible for other humans - sister in law is a social worker, and people should generally be fortunate if their family has not needed one in their lives...Anyway)
The protesters presumably wanted to push the boundaries so that the legality of these restrictions can be tested.
If the placards said "Bob is Guilty!", or "if you find Jane guilty then I know where you live!" then that would be clear cut jury interference.
Entreating a juror to use their conscience to decide guilt seems to be less about interference, and more about reminding a juror what to do.
Having said that, I would probably not take legal advice from someone who scrawls it on cardboard and holds it up in the street, so there is probably more nuance to this situation than is being reported.
The reporting suggests that the AG is trying to expunge the use of climate beliefs as a defence altogether.
I personally don't think beliefs should entitle anyone to carry out any illegal action they feel is justified (slippery slope). And if I was on a jury, I'd make that call based on the evidence.
What i don't like the sound of is a decision by a politician (though all law comes for parliament ultimately) about what a jury can or can't hear.
Yes I get in theory we can all "influence" our MP to shape policy on climate, though it's hard to keep a straight face when typing that, as in practice we know it's absurd. The 2 party system that exists in England (ignoring the outlying nations for convenience) occasionally branches into a 3 party system, but it's a canard. A general election is not sophisticated enough to handle a range of views, which is why there is a plethora of lobbying and interest groups that exist at any one time.
Saying "you had an election, so you now can't protest about anything" would see all sorts of causes dropped, from cures for child cancer, help for heros, Harper's law and all the things PH deem "worthy" this week.
I guess we'll have to wait for this to crawl through the High Court to find out who is "right".
Ian Geary said:
The reporting suggests that the AG is trying to expunge the use of climate beliefs as a defence altogether.
I personally don't think beliefs should entitle anyone to carry out any illegal action they feel is justified (slippery slope). And if I was on a jury, I'd make that call based on the evidence.
What i don't like the sound of is a decision by a politician (though all law comes for parliament ultimately) about what a jury can or can't hear.
There’s a bit of confusion here. I personally don't think beliefs should entitle anyone to carry out any illegal action they feel is justified (slippery slope). And if I was on a jury, I'd make that call based on the evidence.
What i don't like the sound of is a decision by a politician (though all law comes for parliament ultimately) about what a jury can or can't hear.
The AG is a law officer within the government. His job is to advise the Govt and to act for it in certain circumstances.
A judge’s job is to try a case. Judge’s value their time highly, perhaps unduly so. They regard the court’s resources as highly valuable, not to be wasted by one party to the detriment of others who are waiting for their cases to be heard.
So raising irrelevant matters - those which even if proved would make no difference legally - a bit of a raw nerve. The AG has stepped in and asked a Judge to stop it happening. The judge did not have to agree, but has done so. So that’s that.
It’s not therefore a case of the AG expunging anything. It’s a judge barring certain statements. And nor is it a case expunging climate beliefs as a defence, because climate beliefs aren’t a defence in the first place. They are no more relevant, and in this instance an equal waste of court time, to claiming that aliens made me do it m’lud.
If someone of convicted then AIUI they can put forward pretty much any old balls as mitigation, so perhaps that is where these arguments have a home. Whether the judge has to take it into account is a different matter though.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Ian Geary said:
Entreating a juror to use their conscience to decide guilt seems to be less about interference, and more about reminding a juror what to do.
A juror should not be using their conscience or any of their personal beliefs to determine guilt. They should be dispassionately assessing the evidence, and only the evidence, presented to them in court. CheesecakeRunner said:
A juror should not be using their conscience or any of their personal beliefs to determine guilt. They should be dispassionately assessing the evidence, and only the evidence, presented to them in court.
There was a case about the sinking of the Belgrano. A civil servant breached the Official Secrets Act and went to trial. Old Bailey I think. He 'leaked' the details of the circumstances surrounding the decision to sink it, with the loss of 323 lives. It was, in the eyes of many, a clear case of guilt. I could see no argument against it. Indeed, the judge was of the same mind and in his summing up directed the jury to find the defendant guilty They came back with a NG. Quite clearly, they felt the public had a right to know what was being done in its name.It's a case of how you see your duty, that's for all 13 involved, all of whom used their conscience to come to their conclusion. My feeling then, and now, was good on them.
Derek Smith said:
There was a case about the sinking of the Belgrano. A civil servant breached the Official Secrets Act and went to trial. Old Bailey I think. He 'leaked' the details of the circumstances surrounding the decision to sink it, with the loss of 323 lives. It was, in the eyes of many, a clear case of guilt. I could see no argument against it. Indeed, the judge was of the same mind and in his summing up directed the jury to find the defendant guilty They came back with a NG. Quite clearly, they felt the public had a right to know what was being done in its name.
It's a case of how you see your duty, that's for all 13 involved, all of whom used their conscience to come to their conclusion. My feeling then, and now, was good on them.
What 13 is this?It's a case of how you see your duty, that's for all 13 involved, all of whom used their conscience to come to their conclusion. My feeling then, and now, was good on them.
Or have I not been paying attention again?
vaud said:
Bluequay said:
Surely by prosecuting her they are just making her protest more widely seen.
They are trying to suppress her point, it is the context of where she was doing it?paulrockliffe said:
Bluequay said:
Maybe they should stop prosecuting people for things that the average person thinks they shouldn't be punished for. Then they wouldn't have to worry about Jury Nullification.
The average person believes that this case should be prosecuted.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff