On the subject of jury verdicts, rather than statues, a defendant charged with manslaughter who was said by the prosecution to have taken the law into his own hands has been acquitted by a Bristol jury today.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ghter.html
(I've linked to the Daily Mail because the report seems most detailed. Here's a lees detailed report from the beeb
Craig Wiltshire death: Nathan Smith cleared of manslaughter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140865
Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
I was surprised by the verdict.
I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.
Jonathan
I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
As a general point which I've made before, juries seem a lot more at ease with "unlawful killing" as opposed to "manslaughter." Partly, I suppose, because unlawful killing is an inquest verdict where nobody is on trial and rules of evidence are more relaxed, but also because manslaughter sounds worse. I must say that on the stuff I've seen published, which will have been just the bits the media consider newsworthy, I'm not surprised by the verdict at all.
I'm not clear if he was called by the prosecution or defence but either way, it looks like a reasonable doubt to me.An expert in forensic and legal medicine ( Professor Jason Payne-James) told the court he did not think Smith’s method of restraint, as a member of the public with no training, was inappropriate.
-
- Posts: 753
- Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
I wasn't second guessing anything. I didn't say or imply that they got anything wrong. I was surprised.DaveReading wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 4:28pmIn order to second-guess the jury's verdict, you really need to see all the evidence that was put in front of them, as well as the judge's instructions.
For a court of this type we're unlikely to see a transcript, and obviously there won't be any Sentencing Remarks. But we might get to know the instructions.
Jonathan
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
From the information in the BBC article (I will not read the Daily Mail link), it seems to me the key question is whether there were reasonable grounds in law to perform a citizen's arrest. The BBC article contains the following statement:thirdcrank wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 3:19pm I must say that on the stuff I've seen published, which will have been just the bits the media consider newsworthy, I'm not surprised by the verdict at all.
I'm not clear if he was called by the prosecution or defence but either way, it looks like a reasonable doubt to me.An expert in forensic and legal medicine ( Professor Jason Payne-James) told the court he did not think Smith’s method of restraint, as a member of the public with no training, was inappropriate.
That seems to suggest that he was not caught in flagrante delicto, e.g. either spotted leaving premises he had just burgled or visibly carrying goods which there was very good reason to believe had been stolen. Nor does it appear that the police had stated that they were seeking the man in connection with the burglaries. Surely the defendant did not detain him having no evidence or good grounds, other than just a vague/unconfirmed suspicion?The jury was told to assume that Mr Wiltshire was the man suspected of committing burglaries in the neighbourhood and that the arrest was not a case of mistaken identity.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
The power of arrest for everybody ie not restricted to a constable seem to be clearly explained here:-
Powers of arrest
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/power- ... %20do%20so.
That's from a Know your rights source rather than me. Here's my edited version of that to cover these circumstances:
Powers of arrest
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/power- ... %20do%20so.
That's from a Know your rights source rather than me. Here's my edited version of that to cover these circumstances:
From the same link, here's the relevant bit of "reasonable force" which seems to have been the main issue left to the jury.Private citizens may arrest: where an indictable offence has been committed, anyone whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting is guilty of it. A private citizen may only make an arrest if: it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead; and they have reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to arrest someone to stop them making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him/ her
It's important to remember that the acquitted defendant was just that, and entitled to the protections our system gives those accused of crime.Under s 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 someone making an arrest may ‘use as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances ... in effecting ... the lawful arrest of ... suspected offenders ...
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Agreed.thirdcrank wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 5:59pmFrom the same link, here's the relevant bit of "reasonable force" which seems to have been the main issue left to the jury.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 753
- Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Fair enough.Jdsk wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 4:32pmI wasn't second guessing anything. I didn't say or imply that they got anything wrong. I was surprised.DaveReading wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 4:28pmIn order to second-guess the jury's verdict, you really need to see all the evidence that was put in front of them, as well as the judge's instructions.
For a court of this type we're unlikely to see a transcript, and obviously there won't be any Sentencing Remarks. But we might get to know the instructions.
Jonathan
I guess we'll find out whether there was anything exceptionable in the judge's instructions if and when the Attorney General again makes a threat/promise to seek another opinion from the Court of Appeal on a point of law arising from the case. Although AFAIK she hasn't actually done so (yet) in the case of the Colston Four.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Yes, and I'd bet against it happening.DaveReading wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 6:12pmAlthough AFAIK she hasn't actually done so (yet) in the case of the Colston Four.
Jonathan