Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?

[thirdcrank]

If there's a possible problem with local sentiment influencing a jury, the normal solution has been to hold the trial elsewhere.

[[XAP]Bob]

Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.

Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.

So should all motoring offences be tried with an exclusively motoring jury?
And all murders be tried with an exclusively murderous jury?

[Vorpal]

I wasn't talking about different topics, one was black people being enslaved in modern day africa https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/2 ... ls-in-mali and the other was police shooting dead black people in Nigeria, these should be central to their cause but for some reason they're not?

Why should they be central to BLM's cause?

BLM arose to oppose police violence in the USA. While they have expanded somewhat into related areas of social & criminal justice, and other countries have picked up the movement, opposing modern slavery is not one of their goals, and there are other organisations working to oppose modern slavery. Maybe Nigeria has, or will start a BLM movement of their own, but asking British or American BLM protestors why they don't will not be taken as anything but whataboutism.

[Stevek76]

Honestly held belief that the owner(s) would have consented to the damage is an explicit defence in the law in question:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5

It's a necessary one else you probably couldn't demolish something you own, let alone get someone else to do it. Further, only one defendant actually put forward that defence, though as I said, it's one of the more convincing in my view.

I wasn't aware that criminal cases could be moved to other crown courts, it's normal for them to be held in the nearest appropriate as far as I'm aware, would be interested to see any guidance on such. Clearly if there is a process this case did not qualify. Remember that, despite the oftentimes intense debate about this case, the alleged crime in question was not a particularly serious one. Indeed I find it a little puzzling how people who've never lived here are managing to have such strong opinions about some minor damage involving a statue of a person that almost none of them will have heard of before.

At any rate, there is no realistic route to a re-trial, the charge is not serious enough to qualify for the 2003 double jeopardy law and the only other route is in the event that someone is successfully convicted for jury intimidation, which seems vanishingly unlikely. The case likely wouldn't have made it to court had Patel not interfered and pressured the council (who in reality are quite happy for an awkward problem to have been solved for them) to provide evidence.

[thirdcrank]

If anybody has missed the point, the defendants in the case we have been discussing were found not guilty by a jury. End of.

I've no idea what the rules/ guidance are for moving trials, but I do know it happens - and sufficiently often for me to have noticed. A well-publicised recent example was the transfer of the case against David Duckenfield and others following events in Sheffield being heard at Preston Crown Court
================================================
PS

TUESDAY, APRIL 14 1981: TRANSFER TO OLD BAILEY FOR TRIAL
At Leeds Crown Court, the judge ruled that Peter Sutcliffe would go on trial in London's Old Bailey
criminal court April 29 1981. During a four minute hearing, both defence and prosecution lawyers
agreed to the transfer, fearing Sutcliffe might not get a fair hearing before a Yorkshire jury

http://www.murderpedia.org/male.S/image ... ire%20jury.

I assume that's reliable

I note that some forty years ago, a major trial like this could be rearranged to be heard in another court in a fortnight. With or without covid, crown court trials now can take many months - edging into years - to be listed

(I've done a bit of unsuccessful googling to find any rules or guidelines. All the hits - including some promising-looking ones with historic-sounding names - seem to have been from American sites, which may say something.)

[reohn2]

Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.

Isn't the jury a jury of their peers?
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.

So should all motoring offences be tried with an exclusively motoring jury?
And all murders be tried with an exclusively murderous jury?

Err,no.
Jury of peers I think is meant to be geographical,rather than people who are statue demolishers by trade

[[XAP]Bob]

I don’t see any mention of it being geographical - and the cases TC links above show that isn’t a requirement. It’s often true, but for practical rather than legislative reasons.

[simonineaston]

Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...

[DaveReading]

Were the Jury from Bristol ? It seems that a great part of the reason they were let off was that the statue belonged to the people of Bristol therefor that somehow give them a right to destroy it. If that is correct then it was a mistrial and needs to be reheld in another part of the country with no one from Bristol on the Jury.

Have you discussed with members of the jury their reasons for the Not Guilty verdict ?

Thought not.

[thirdcrank]

One of the things that occurs to me is that there is only one Crown Court, which sits at different locations. So a trial is heard in the Crown Court, rather than a Crown Court. That, in itself, must give the judges and administrative staff scope for shifting cases around. Perhaps the strongest reason for not trying all offences where they occurred is that the alleged offending may occur in different places and it would be silly to be forced to trail defendants around the country.

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-ju ... own-court/

There's been a lot of re-organisation and I'm probably totally out-of-date. The two opposing trends have been centralisation to cut costs, and the need for more court rooms as more are needed, if that makes sense. In West Yorkshire, Wakefield used to be a level 3 centre, which was closed for administrative reasons.

Re transferring of cases, the 1974 trial of Judith Ward was held in Wakefield, rather than Leeds Town Hall, for security reasons. (Re miscarriages of justice, this was probably one.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M62_coach_bombing

I can't remember all the details about Bradford, but at one point the Crown Court building there was closed and cases listed for Bradford were held in Leeds but at the Bradford Centre "sitting in Leeds." I've a vague idea that there was a move to just have Leeds but a new Crown Court Centre was eventually opened in Bradford. I think Bradford is level 2.

[Mike Sales]

Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...

This is not quite a parallel case.

Eric Gill was the sculptor of the statue of Prospero and Ariel, the characters from Shakspeare's The Tempest. which is on Broadcasting House.
The attack may be because of Gill's sexual behavioiur.

Gill's personal diaries reveal incestuous sexual abuse of his two eldest teenage daughters, incestuous relationships with his sisters, and sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known beyond his family and friends until the publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

BBC Monitoring journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh said the presence of Gill’s statue on the front of the building had been “an obsession for British QAnon, ‘save our children’, ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ and other conspiracy groups for a very long time”. The motives or identity of the person attacking the statue with a hammer are unknown.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... ting-house

[pwa]

Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...

This is not quite a parallel case.

Eric Gill was the sculptor of the statue of Prospero and Ariel, the characters from Shakspeare's The Tempest. which is on Broadcasting House.
The attack may be because of Gill's sexual behavioiur.

Gill's personal diaries reveal incestuous sexual abuse of his two eldest teenage daughters, incestuous relationships with his sisters, and sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known beyond his family and friends until the publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill

BBC Monitoring journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh said the presence of Gill’s statue on the front of the building had been “an obsession for British QAnon, ‘save our children’, ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ and other conspiracy groups for a very long time”. The motives or identity of the person attacking the statue with a hammer are unknown.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... ting-house

Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.

The sensible thing to do, in the light of the Bristol events and concerns over other public statues, is to set up a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them. Wherever the statues are in the UK, and whatever the nature of the concerns. Nobody will get their own way all the time, but at least people will not feel their concerns are being ignored.

[ANTONISH]

Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.

The sensible thing to do, in the light of the Bristol events and concerns over other public statues, is to set up a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them. Wherever the statues are in the UK, and whatever the nature of the concerns. Nobody will get their own way all the time, but at least people will not feel their concerns are being ignored.

Where would it end?
There are numerous figures with problematic pasts.
Are we to destroy everything of merit because it's creator was something of a monster?
I can foresee a whole new industry of publicly funded witch finders.

[Jdsk]

Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.

The sensible thing to do, in the light of the Bristol events and concerns over other public statues, is to set up a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them. Wherever the statues are in the UK, and whatever the nature of the concerns. Nobody will get their own way all the time, but at least people will not feel their concerns are being ignored.

Where would it end?
There are numerous figures with problematic pasts.
Are we to destroy everything of merit because it's creator was something of a monster?
I can foresee a whole new industry of publicly funded witch finders.

There's an enormous difference between "a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them" and "destroying everything of merit".

Jonathan

[ANTONISH]

Eric Gill's works have been problematic for a while now. To my eyes, they look stylish and attractive, but knowing the faults of their creator detracts greatly from their appeal. I used to enjoy Gill's work without exception, but now I just think what a pity it is that the works are tainted by the truth behind them.

The sensible thing to do, in the light of the Bristol events and concerns over other public statues, is to set up a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them. Wherever the statues are in the UK, and whatever the nature of the concerns. Nobody will get their own way all the time, but at least people will not feel their concerns are being ignored.

Where would it end?
There are numerous figures with problematic pasts.
Are we to destroy everything of merit because it's creator was something of a monster?
I can foresee a whole new industry of publicly funded witch finders.

There's an enormous difference between "a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything, should be done with them" and "destroying everything of merit".

Jonathan

You've given a partial quote which changes the meaning of what I said.
As for "a robust, thorough and fair process for assessing controversial statues and what, if anything should be done with them"
That would provide decades of work for a group of civil servants just to decide the process.