Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

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
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

I was surprised by the verdict.

I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

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.
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.
I'm not clear if he was called by the prosecution or defence but either way, it looks like a reasonable doubt to me.
DaveReading
Posts: 746
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by DaveReading »

Jdsk wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 2:43pm I was surprised by the verdict.

I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.

Jonathan
In 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.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

DaveReading wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 4:28pm
Jdsk wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 2:43pm I was surprised by the verdict.

I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.
In 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.
I wasn't second guessing anything. I didn't say or imply that they got anything wrong. I was surprised.

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
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4629
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by slowster »

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.
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.
I'm not clear if he was called by the prosecution or defence but either way, it looks like a reasonable doubt to me.
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:
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.
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?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by thirdcrank »

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:
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
From the same link, here's the relevant bit of "reasonable force" which seems to have been the main issue left to the jury.
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 ...
It's important to remember that the acquitted defendant was just that, and entitled to the protections our system gives those accused of crime.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

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.
Agreed.

Jonathan
DaveReading
Posts: 746
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by DaveReading »

Jdsk wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 4:32pm
DaveReading wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 4:28pm
Jdsk wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 2:43pm I was surprised by the verdict.

I hope that the instructions to the jury are made publicly available.
In 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.
I wasn't second guessing anything. I didn't say or imply that they got anything wrong. I was surprised.

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
Fair enough.

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.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

Post by Jdsk »

DaveReading wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 6:12pmAlthough AFAIK she hasn't actually done so (yet) in the case of the Colston Four.
Yes, and I'd bet against it happening.

Jonathan
Post Reply