You are reading a single comment by @nick_h. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
This info is long overdue. The papers should have explained this as soon as the jury came in. Another point to bring up is that legal precedents like this one immediately become part of
the UK's written constitution, as have the many other cases where protesters have admitted offences but been acquitted.
nick_h.-
Another point to bring up is that legal precedents like this one immediately become part of
the UK's written constitutionThey don't. A jury verdict does not set precedent.
- Does this create a precedent? Does it mean that anybody can now pull down a statute of somebody they don’t like without consequence?
No. And no. Jury verdicts create no precedent in law. If a case with exactly the same facts were tried tomorrow by a different jury, that jury would be entitled to convict.
- Does this create a precedent? Does it mean that anybody can now pull down a statute of somebody they don’t like without consequence?
jellybaby
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/