>Suella Braverman said trial by jury was “an important guardian of liberty” but the result was “causing confusion”.
>The referral would not affect the acquittal, she added.
>The verdict cannot be overturned and the defendants cannot be retried without fresh evidence.
>Ms Braverman said she would decide whether to use powers that, as Attorney General, allow her to seek a Court of Appeal hearing so senior judges “have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases”.
FOR fucks sake
IT WOULD NOT GET OVER THE CLERKS DESK
This is what you get when you put someone with out the relevant experience in a job they couldn’t do even if they had.
Ask the same people complaining, what was the point of a trial if you’re so adamant they were guilty regardless?
I personally find it odd, more surprised it wasn’t a guilty but acquitted/admonished by the judge.
The most chilling thing here is the quote from Jenrick:
“If you’ve broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished, If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed.”
In other words – we don’t like this jury’s verdict. How can we get rid of juries?
Well..
To play devil’s advocate here…
Does this not start a precedent that says that I can destroy whatever I like as long as I can prove I find it ‘offensive’?
5 comments
>Suella Braverman said trial by jury was “an important guardian of liberty” but the result was “causing confusion”.
>The referral would not affect the acquittal, she added.
>The verdict cannot be overturned and the defendants cannot be retried without fresh evidence.
>Ms Braverman said she would decide whether to use powers that, as Attorney General, allow her to seek a Court of Appeal hearing so senior judges “have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases”.
FOR fucks sake
IT WOULD NOT GET OVER THE CLERKS DESK
This is what you get when you put someone with out the relevant experience in a job they couldn’t do even if they had.
eta:
>[Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)
Ask the same people complaining, what was the point of a trial if you’re so adamant they were guilty regardless?
I personally find it odd, more surprised it wasn’t a guilty but acquitted/admonished by the judge.
The most chilling thing here is the quote from Jenrick:
“If you’ve broken the law and committed criminal damage you should be punished, If the jury is a barrier to ensuring they are punished then that needs to be addressed.”
In other words – we don’t like this jury’s verdict. How can we get rid of juries?
Well..
To play devil’s advocate here…
Does this not start a precedent that says that I can destroy whatever I like as long as I can prove I find it ‘offensive’?