Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
If there's a possible problem with local sentiment influencing a jury, the normal solution has been to hold the trial elsewhere.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
So should all motoring offences be tried with an exclusively motoring jury?reohn2 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 10:02amIsn't the jury a jury of their peers?Pebble wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 9:52am 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.
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
And all murders be tried with an exclusively murderous jury?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Why should they be central to BLM's cause?Pebble wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 9:52am
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?
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.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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.
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.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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
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.)
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
http://www.murderpedia.org/male.S/image ... ire%20jury.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
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.)
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Err,no.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 12:05pmSo should all motoring offences be tried with an exclusively motoring jury?reohn2 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 10:02amIsn't the jury a jury of their peers?Pebble wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 9:52am 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.
If so then a jury of Bristolians are the people to judge the case I would've thought.
And all murders be tried with an exclusively murderous jury?
Jury of peers I think is meant to be geographical,rather than people who are statue demolishers by trade
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
- simonineaston
- Posts: 8077
- Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
- Location: ...at a cricket ground
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
-
- Posts: 753
- Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Have you discussed with members of the jury their reasons for the Not Guilty verdict ?Pebble wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 9:52amWere 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.
Thought not.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
This is not quite a parallel case.simonineaston wrote: ↑ Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_GillGill'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://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... ting-houseBBC 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.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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.Mike Sales wrote: ↑12 Jan 2022, 7:59pmThis is not quite a parallel case.simonineaston wrote: ↑ Let's see what 12 good & true Londoners make of the geezer doing for a statue of Gill, at Broadcasting House...
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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_GillGill'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://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... ting-houseBBC 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.
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.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
Where would it end?pwa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 5:07am
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.
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.
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
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".ANTONISH wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 8:40amWhere would it end?pwa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 5:07am
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.
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.
Jonathan
Re: Possible 10 years for damaging a statue?
You've given a partial quote which changes the meaning of what I said.Jdsk wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 8:51amThere'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".ANTONISH wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 8:40amWhere would it end?pwa wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 5:07am
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.
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.
Jonathan
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.