Do the verdicts in the trial of the Colston 4 signal something wrong with our jury system? 10 things you should know

13 comments

  1. Read this one late last night and it’s pretty good.

    TL:DR Nobody knows what conclusions the jury came to behind their verdict and commentators from both sides shouldn’t be casting aspersions or declaring wins for their micro-cause.

  2. The secret barrister is always a great read and far more insightful than the vast majority of commentary you find elsewhere. Thanks for sharing!

  3. Let face it, for a presumably first time offence, what would they have even got if it was a guilty verdict?

    Can’t imagine it would have been anything stiffer than a 20 hour community order and a £200 fine.

  4. Excellent run down, as is typical. The core of it is, of course, that the Jury is a black box.

    That said, I don’t share the persuasiveness of the two main defences;

    – It being acceptable to use reasonable force, to prevent the crime of an offensive/distressing statue, being committed

    – An honest belief in consent having being granted by the owner of the statue

    The latter I can kind of understand. In the moment of the middle of the protest the owners (or presumed owners) are all around you, egging you to do it. Fair enough.

    But the former feels like it shouldn’t have been the goal as the defence have made it. It isn’t like it was erected suddenly. And what amounts to offensiveness/distress in the eyes of the defendants is surely more questionable. If that’s the test, it could be applied extremely broadly to ‘offensive’ things. Should it really be in the eyes of the beholder?

    Either way. Regardless of the actual law. I suspect there is an effect that now due to the reporting of the result that more people think they can have an excuse to damage things they dislike. Of course, while the CPS always has the ability to prosecute for criminal damage, and therefore a Jury would likely always be involved… it may now be moreso in the public consciousness that it isn’t an automatic win provided ones reasoning is morally justifiable. Of course that has different meanings to different people. And I doubt everyone is throwing a QC at it. But an effect all the same in a slight undermining in the trust in the law amongst the public, regardless of the reality of it being perfectly reasonable in this instance.

  6. It’s a shame none of the MPs blustering about the collapse of rule of law will read or understand this, or will continue to pretend not to.

  7. Purely personally I think the Colston statue trial is a testament to the fairness of the jury system. I cheered – both when the statue was dumped in the harbour and especially when the verdict was delivered.

    Priti can enact all the repressive laws she wants but she can’t make them stick if the people reject them.

  8. Thanks, this is a good article.

    But I still don’t agree with the conclusion the jury drew. There was no serious argument that a crime was being committed by the statue’s continued existence. (If that was true, then the protestors could have forced its removal by threatening the council with prosecution for that “crime”.) There is no serious argument that they weren’t damaging the statue (and the harbour railing). And there’s no serious argument that they had the consent of the owners to remove it – BCC had recently voted *not* to remove the statue, and BCC has a much better argument to be the owners on behalf of the people of Bristol than a random mob.

    So the jury must have decided not to convict because they approved of the action. And this is not a case of an “unjust law” – no-one’s saying criminal damage laws need to be removed.

  9. No nothing is wrong with the jury system. Its called “Jury nullification” and they dont have to give a guilty verdict if they don’t want to.

  10. Since the defense isn’t even allowed to mention the fact that jury nullification exists and argue for it to be used, it’s absolutely amazing this case is getting so much free publicity and raising awareness among potential jurors who soon might be judging the guilt of protestors that have been ‘seriously annoying’.

  12. If it wasn’t jury nullification , which is just the system we have , but instead the argument that stopping the crime of “offensive material” allows a valid reason to destroy property then the cps should appeal the verdict on the correct application of the law. If a higher court holds up the point of law at least then we all know that feeling insulted is good enough reasons to destroy public property.

  13. Where was the outrage from DM readers when they toppled Saddam Hussein’s statue? Surely that wasn’t a symbolic act of heroic people toppling a corrupt Government, but was actually an illegal mob destroying an important piece of Iraqi history?

    Why can I never find any Hitler statues when I visit Germany? How will I ever learn about the greatest dictator Earth has ever seen? How dare the Germans change their minds on venerating him. Where is the DM outrage at?

    Most would agree there is a line to be crossed on who society should choose to venerate with an immortal likeness.

    Most would also agree that the line on who is acceptable to venerate moves with time as our values evolve.

    So why do so many in the UK today feel it’s OK to topple Saddam and Hitler statues, but not OK to topple a statue of a monster who ran the largest slave trading company in the world, and branded slave children with a red hot poker?

Leave a Reply