@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:The Jurors at Maidstone Crown Court were totally on the safe side with their decision.
Quote:Once all evidence in the case has been heard the judge's summing up takes place. The judge sets out for the jury the law on each of the charges made and what the prosecution must prove to make the jury sure of the case. At this stage the judge refers to notes made during the course of the trial and reminds the jury of the key points of the case, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each side's argument. The judge then gives directions about the duties of the jury before they retire to the jury deliberation room to consider the verdict.
If the jury find the defendant guilty then the judge will decide on an appropriate sentence. The sentence will be influenced by a number of factors: principally the circumstances of the case, the impact that the crime has had on the victim, relevant law especially guideline cases from the Court of Appeal. The judge will equally take into account the mitigation and any reports and references on the defendant. Only once the judge has considered all of these factors will the appropriate sentence or punishment be pronounced.
Source: Judiciary of England and Wales
@Walter Hinteler,
What larger crimes Walt?
It does seem to be the crux, or is it that the defendents are middle-class?
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
What larger crimes Walt?
I don't have the written verdict (yet), so I must rely (like you) on what is written in the papers.
And there's mentioned "the greater damage caused by climate change" etc etc. (See link above, your local/favourite paper, et. al.)
spendius wrote: or is it that the defendents are middle-class?
Defendents? Is there a new trial already? Or another one?
@spendius,
Just think of the possibilities, Spendius, let your imagination be your guide in regard to this greater damage defense. Lets see, what else can be done. If climate change is now the number one sacred cow, we can do almost anything it looks like to me.
@okie,
I don't think, okie, that you live in England or Wales.
spendi, however, could change this law from 1971: he just has to elect a different parliament.
I don't have much knowledge of English law, and I am not an attorney in the USA, but I do believe here that 'fear of global warming' would not be ruled as justification for vandalism, destruction of property, or anarchy. But gee, if that should work here, we could blow up a casino because we are afraid people will get addicted to gambling or burn down a bar to eliminate risk of drunk drivers or dependency on alcohol, or ram a truck into a McDonalds for fear they will kill people will all that fried fat, or sabotage oil drilling rigs or coal mines or refineries that are putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Where would it stop indeed?
My understanding of justification for breaking the law would be to break into a burning building to rescue people or pets; to speed in order to get an emergency case to the hospital, to use violence to stop somebody from commiting violence to another, etc.
I am beginning to think the world really has gone nuts every time one of these realy wacko deals turns up though.
@Foxfyre,
You don't understand, Foxfyre. Global Warming is the ultimate crime. All of the other stuff you mention, gambling addictions and stuff like that are childs play in comparison. Global warming will destroy our planet and kill us all. To allow that to continue is to appease genocide, not just on people but the planet, which is Mother Earth, the most sacred possession that we have.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't have much knowledge of English law, and I am not an attorney in the USA, but I do believe here that 'fear of global warming' would not be ruled as justification for vandalism, destruction of property, or anarchy.
I've not much knowledge of English law neither (and live under a totally different legal system) - but even with that little knowledge following the procedure here was quite easy.
@okie,
okie wrote:
You don't understand, Foxfyre.
Well, the English law system is perhaps a bit complicated.
But I'm glad, you're an expert with it.
However your ...
Quote:Global Warming is the ultimate crime. All of the other stuff you mention, gambling addictions and stuff like that are childs play in comparison. Global warming will destroy our planet and kill us all. To allow that to continue is to appease genocide, not just on people but the planet, which is Mother Earth, the most sacred possession that we have.
... isn't really what is written in the law and what the Maidstone Crown Court jurors said.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:But I'm glad, you're an expert with it.
It doesn't take an expert to recognize silliness, Walter. I don't care if lawyers think they can conduct silliness under the guise of the law, and therefore are exempt from the rest of us making comments on it.
@okie,
okie wrote:
It doesn't take an expert to recognize silliness, Walter. I don't care if lawyers think they can conduct silliness under the guise of the law, and therefore are exempt from the rest of us making comments on it.
Well, the
Criminal Damage Act 1971 was established by the UK's parliament. Prime Minister of HMG was in those days the conservative Edward Heath. I'm not sure how many lawyers were in Her Majesty's Government in those days (or in the Parliament).
If you are referring to the jurors at Maidstone Crown Court - they are all laymen and laywomen (at least as far as I know).
Just to clarify: the jury's verdict was "not guilty" - they didn't use the "jury equity".
@Walter Hinteler,
And the jury would all be NIMBYs. Presumably they are happy with the 32% contribution of coal to their electricity supply so long as it is done somewhere else out of their sight.
On their own argument the utility services to their houses should be discontinued and they, and the activists, should be banned from buying cars.
The verdict should be appealed if sense is to prevail.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
okie wrote:
You don't understand, Foxfyre.
Well, the English law system is perhaps a bit complicated.
But I'm glad, you're an expert with it.
It is you, Walter, who knows nothing of British law, or of the option available to Scottish juries:
"Not proven".
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
It is you, Walter, who knows nothing of British law, or of the option available to Scottish juries:
"Not proven".
Well, I do know a bit about the English/Welsh criminal law (and the judiciary in England and Wales), know the Scottish Law more or less only from
Professor McDonald's Conveyancing Manual ...
But I'm totally sure that the jury at Maidston Crown Court can't make a verdict using Scottish law.
@Walter Hinteler,
And you should also be sure that Okie made no reference to English law nor did he claim to be an expert in it.
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:If you are referring to the jurors at Maidstone Crown Court - they are all laymen and laywomen (at least as far as I know).
I don't think that is strictly true. A member of the "laity" is a person not professionally engaged in the matter at hand. Through their property values I suggest that the jurors were not laity. A sort of "let the oiks up North have the smoke-we'll just have the juice and whinge about the price of it" movement.
@spendius,
That may well be, spendi.
I was only relying to the information I got from Her Majesty's Courts Service.
@Foxfyre,
No, he didn't. But he responded with the above.
