Close Menu
    Regno Unito

    I manifestanti dell’Azione Palestinese non sono colpevoli di furto con scasso presso la difesa

    Share.
    View 11 Comments

    11 commenti

    1. LycanIndarys on

      >Corner had individually been accused of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, by striking police sergeant Kate Evans in her back with a sledgehammer.

      >Today the jury said they were unable to reach a verdict on that GBH allegation.

      This is the worst part. There is video evidence of this assault happening (which has been [released to the public](https://www.channel4.com/news/police-release-footage-of-palestine-action-activists-in-alleged-attack-on-bristol-factory), so you can watch it yourself if you don’t believe it), and yet the jury failed to reach a verdict. For clarity; this was the assault that led to a police officer’s spine being fractured – this was not a minor injury, it is life-altering.

      It’s hard to argue anything other than jury nullification – that the jury reached their decision because they agreed with the defendants’ political justification, and thought that outweighed the evidence of their crimes.

      I still strongly support the concept of jury trials (and am against Lammy’s proposed changes), but it’s a difficult position to justify on days like this, if I’m honest.

    2. Sensitive_Echo5058 on

      I feel bad for the police officer. I don’t think justice has been served. “Palestine” shouldn’t be an excuse for violence.

      Edit: Lots of downvotes, one assumes by people who condone violence.

    3. HelmetsAkimbo on

      I’m sure there will be plenty of people in this thread disgusted that these criminals are walking the streets again because of jury nullification.

    4. Jaded_Strain_3753 on

      Worth pointing out that there will most likely be a retrial for some of the defendants. Not all of them were found not guilty of all charges, some had no verdict reached

    5. NathanDavie on

      Love jury nullification and this is why I refer to the plan for juryless trials as fascist.

    6. DrPeroxide on

      Not saying I agree with the actions of these activists or the result the jury gave here, but I really do hope that this result impresses upon the government that the general sentiment of it’s citizens is wholly against giving support to Israel and that we do not appreciate the broad vilification of those who stand up for this broadly held point of view. Violence is not the answer, not right now, we aren’t close to the abhorrent situation in the US, but the government does need to realise that violence will only increase if they continue to ignore the people and suppress any avenues for impactful peaceful protest.

    7. WillWatsof on

      I’m not going to be like most of the Redditors who believe they already know enough to convict and that any verdict other than guilty is a miscarriage of justice. A vetted jury saw all the evidence in context, we didn’t.

      But in the event that this *is* a consequence of jury equity, it’s highly ironic that it almost certainly wouldn’t have happened if the government had not moved in to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. Without that action, which is out of touch with how the majority of the British people feel about the issue, this result might have been very different. So I guess the defendants may have the government to thank?

    8. SableSnail on

      Apparently, if you’re posh enough the jury will let you off for beating a police officer with a sledgehammer.

      Judge-only trials can’t come fast enough.

    9. radiant_0wl on

      We may not know who was on the jury but i hope those who do investigate whether the jury declared everything correctly and they didn’t lie to hide any biases.

    10. Jigsawsupport on

      To be frank this is a consequence of the government entirely losing the argument on the Gaza genocide, if you pursue a policy that the majority of the public dislikes and some actively hate. And then respond to that dislike by curtailing basic freedoms, then the public is going to get pissy, and do things like this when called for jury service.

      Of course a better approach would have been to recognise basic free speech and prevent the extremism spiral in the first place, but since the government seems to have been hand picked by the Epstein gang for their pliability, I am not surprised that competence isn’t their strong suit.

    11. Happytallperson on

      Well….that’s awkward for the government. 

      They hung the Palestine Action proscription on the back of this. 

      Obviously usual caveat not in court, didn’t see all the evidence, and jury deliberations were secret.

      But I have a hunch that a burglarly, criminal damage and section 20 GBH (without intent) case with no rush to use the Terrorism Act would have got some fairly simple convictions. 

      Whereas calling them terrorists and gunning for the highest and harshest charges provokes a ‘you taking the piss mate?’ response from the jury.

    Leave A Reply