*He concluded that the defendants had either set out to “manipulate” the jury into acquitting them even if they were sure of the pair’s guilt, or to use the trial to continue their protest within the courtroom.*
*“Either motivation would be serious as you would be seeking to set yourselves above the law,” the judge said.*
*“Each of you has clear disdain for the judicial process. Your contempts are very serious as they represent complete contempt for the court and court process.”*
He seems very astute and certainly understood their motives.
> Asked by the judge whether they wished him to take anything into consideration in sentencing, Lewis said: “I continue to be astonished that today in a British court, a judge can or would even want to criminalise the mention of the words fuel poverty or climate crisis.
> “There are thousands of deaths each year in the UK from fuel poverty and thousands of deaths around the world due to climate change. In the future this will be millions.”
How on earth can it be possible to be aquitted by a jury, but still jailed because the judge didn’t like the defence you used?
There is something seriously wrong here, irrespective of what you think of climate activists – this sounds like something that would happen in China or Iran, not a free country.
A bit fucking frightening that you can ban someone from talking about the climate crisis in a court i.e. ban them from mentioning an undeniable empirical truth
We seem to have politicians who think they are above the law. Wonder why they don’t get sent to prison.
They were told not to do something and did it anyway, that’s pretty open and shut contempt of court.
Pissing off judges is not wise.
Sorry but they were jailed for refusing to comply with a court order not to mention climate change as part of their defence, there is a big difference.
Sometimes the courts do something contemptible. Good on them.
Maybe it’s just me but I think the cost of a Crown Court appearance which ends in a custodial sentence for a peaceful non-violent protest is completely disproportionate – especially when you can’t mention the reason why you did it in the first place.
Several stories about judges making questionable judgements have made the news recently. As primary pillars of the establishment judges have traditionally been shielded from this kind of public scrutiny. I wonder if these days its the reason the stories are breaking out.
This one is so petty it suggests that all the judge’s previous judgements might need to be reconsidered.
First of all, it’s pretty clear that many haven’t read the details here, and secondly many don’t understand contempt of court.
The judge had issued a court order that they couldn’t use the climate crisis as a defence, which they both went ahead and did. As a result, the judge held them in contempt of court, and gave them jail time.
Contempt of court is usually used to prevent the disruption of the court process. As set out on the government website (https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court) this includes things like shouting in court, taking photos, refusing to answer questions, and publicly commenting on the court case to the detriment of the trial.
Additionally, breaking any court orders set by the judge is also a contempt of court. However, it’s should be clear to absolutely everybody that using any particular defence (even to sway the jury) is completely normal practice, part of the usual court process, and does not disrupt the running of the trial.
Just as it would be ludicrous for a judge to ban a thief from using “feeding my child” as a defence, it is frankly outrageous that the judge has decided to make this completely arbitrary requirement to the court case. Particularly when it’s abundantly clear that the climate crisis was the reason these two took the actions they did.
Absolutely embarrassing that these people have got six weeks in prison for using a legal argument. A waste of resources, a distortion of the justice process, and the judge should be ashamed.
“It seems to me that the desires of the defendants to speak about the motivations of their actions is that they believe that the jury will look at the case in a moral way rather than in a legal way. That would be wholly wrong.”
Anyone else not have a problem with juries taking morality into account?
Democracy my ass. The “freedom of speech” and “free country” bullshit this government and media spews is a complete load of bollocks. The UK is not much different to a dictatorship.
Seems like a conflict of interest for judges to be able to set the punishment for contempt of their court.
They weren’t acquitted the jury returned a hung verdict there will be a re trial as the article says. They had a court order to prevent them using the defence of climate change which is why they were found guilty of being in contempt. They then accused the judge of having done nothing about climate change.
They really need to stop doing clickbait headlines like this. Or people need to start reading articles.
The same judge, Silas Reid, gave a transport police officer zero weeks of jail for soliciting sex from a 12 year old (who was an undercover officer) over Snapchat. He gave zero weeks jail to another transport police officer who [sexually assaulted someone three times](https://www.itv.com/news/london/2022-11-18/btp-officer-handed-suspended-sentence-after-sexually-assaulting-colleague). They needed to say they were groping the road to tug at the judges sympathies on this one
How is it possible that this pair get jail time yet car thefts in my area are up and when they finally catch one of the scrotes they get a slap on the wrist
Politically agree with the judge, and using your political views to defend criminal acts isn’t a good defence and really just shows your doubling down.
But, it’s bad when the left do this it’s bad when the right do this. Judges shouldn’t overrule juries, if it wasn’t a fair trike or the jury was in contempt, retry it.
Country becomes more authoritarian by the day, this stuff is heavily disproportionate.
I’m still kind of confused by all this. Last I checked, just being an annoying prick isn’t a crime and that’s really the extent of these Insulate fellas. As much as I dislike them, it’s worrying to see this kind of thing from the courts.
The judge making out like the court has an iron clad monopoly on justice… look at ancient law, Hammurabi, look at the Nazis, look how recently women couldn’t vote, look at when it became illegal to rape to rape your wife.
This judge is part of the problem, not understanding that there are principles that transcend the courtroom and the statute book.
The climate crisis is entirely relevant to their actions. To insist that they remain silent on the very cause that motivated them to undertak5their illegal actions is quite frankly ridiculous.
I seriously think the human race with not survive this climate catastrophe, not with this attitude.
I’m not a fan of Insulate Britain’s tactics (I think they piss the wider public off instead of winning them over), but this is ludicrous and the exact opposite of any kind of justice. It should be perfectly acceptable for them to cite the reasons for why they did what they did as part of their defence and/or mitigation. This judge deserves any contempt he believes he was shown.
In other news, a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving family has been imprisoned for mentioning that his family was starving in his defence.
Theres a lot of complaints here for a story thats very thin on the ground with detail.
How could they be expected to honestly explain their actions without mentioning the climate crisis?
We seem to be reaching a point where the conflict between justice and the law is becoming very very obvious …. Seems like the law is incapable of dealing with the big issues
The arguments here kind of remind me of football pundits saying a referee got a decision wrong, because they personally disagree with how a rule is interpreted now.
Anything you say can be taken down and used against you in court. Especially anything you say in court.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
I don’t like your defence as it manipulates based on thing I dislike, I’m banning you from mentioning that thing I don’t like.
The predictable “law is the law” brigade is out in force.
The government made noisy protests illegal.
The government took away the right to vote unless you have some ID from an approved list.
The government made it illegal to leave your home.
When you’re a slave to “the law” in that simpleton manner, you end up being used. They’ll come for you for something you care about eventually
I understand that the offence wasn’t proven and why they were jailed for contempt (often it’s a 2 year sentence) I also think they were guilty of causing a nuisance, but what they did was surely not an imprisonable offence on its own, but then surely mitigating circumstances would be their stance on climate change, so why were they banned from mentioning it? I know they were told not to, but I think that’s wrong in a country with free speech? (Allegedly)
Also they’d be better campaigning on the bigger issues of container ships running the lowest grade of diesel, pumping out 7000 times the sulphur of a diesel car per litre, massive global mining for rare earth metals and lithium for our tech and electric cars, those quarry trucks burn 500 litres of diesel an hour and that’s the new ones. We all share the same air as the rest of the world and consumerism creates the demand for massively polluting mining, transporting and manufacturing. Stop buying crap you don’t need then letting it rot in landfill and remember the most environmentally friendly car you will ever have is the one you already own.
That’s appalling. If you’re arrested for protesting, it is important context that your actions were a protest. I hope they find a sympathetic barrister to help them appeal.
Politicians who take bribes from fossil fuel industry get a pay rise, whilst people trying to help the environment get imprisoned.. yeh UK is so democratic and not corrupt lol
Judge controls the presentation of evidence and rules on admission . . .the same applies if the jury discovers (e.g. by going on Facebook on their phone in the jury room) that a defendant has a long criminal record. . The juror may think they are doing society a favour by telling their fellow jurors that the defendant is a hardened criminal but it is contempt of court. . If the two defendants felt that the judge’s direction not to mention climate change as a defence was wrong then they could have appealed that direction . . Instead they chose to breach the clear direction given by the court. . . Off to chokey, Blood
I personally think folks need to just wrap their heads around the notion that we have a legal system, not necessarily a justice system
I swear to tell the truth, the *whole* truth and nothing but the truth.
I would find any such person not guilty. If a judge prevents you from using certain language or motivations, it prevents you from staging an effective defence. It also removes the right to be judged by a jury of your peers. The judge will still punish you if he doesn’t like the jury’s verdict.
39 comments
*He concluded that the defendants had either set out to “manipulate” the jury into acquitting them even if they were sure of the pair’s guilt, or to use the trial to continue their protest within the courtroom.*
*“Either motivation would be serious as you would be seeking to set yourselves above the law,” the judge said.*
*“Each of you has clear disdain for the judicial process. Your contempts are very serious as they represent complete contempt for the court and court process.”*
He seems very astute and certainly understood their motives.
> Asked by the judge whether they wished him to take anything into consideration in sentencing, Lewis said: “I continue to be astonished that today in a British court, a judge can or would even want to criminalise the mention of the words fuel poverty or climate crisis.
> “There are thousands of deaths each year in the UK from fuel poverty and thousands of deaths around the world due to climate change. In the future this will be millions.”
How on earth can it be possible to be aquitted by a jury, but still jailed because the judge didn’t like the defence you used?
There is something seriously wrong here, irrespective of what you think of climate activists – this sounds like something that would happen in China or Iran, not a free country.
A bit fucking frightening that you can ban someone from talking about the climate crisis in a court i.e. ban them from mentioning an undeniable empirical truth
We seem to have politicians who think they are above the law. Wonder why they don’t get sent to prison.
They were told not to do something and did it anyway, that’s pretty open and shut contempt of court.
Pissing off judges is not wise.
Sorry but they were jailed for refusing to comply with a court order not to mention climate change as part of their defence, there is a big difference.
Sometimes the courts do something contemptible. Good on them.
Maybe it’s just me but I think the cost of a Crown Court appearance which ends in a custodial sentence for a peaceful non-violent protest is completely disproportionate – especially when you can’t mention the reason why you did it in the first place.
Several stories about judges making questionable judgements have made the news recently. As primary pillars of the establishment judges have traditionally been shielded from this kind of public scrutiny. I wonder if these days its the reason the stories are breaking out.
This one is so petty it suggests that all the judge’s previous judgements might need to be reconsidered.
First of all, it’s pretty clear that many haven’t read the details here, and secondly many don’t understand contempt of court.
The judge had issued a court order that they couldn’t use the climate crisis as a defence, which they both went ahead and did. As a result, the judge held them in contempt of court, and gave them jail time.
Contempt of court is usually used to prevent the disruption of the court process. As set out on the government website (https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court) this includes things like shouting in court, taking photos, refusing to answer questions, and publicly commenting on the court case to the detriment of the trial.
Additionally, breaking any court orders set by the judge is also a contempt of court. However, it’s should be clear to absolutely everybody that using any particular defence (even to sway the jury) is completely normal practice, part of the usual court process, and does not disrupt the running of the trial.
Just as it would be ludicrous for a judge to ban a thief from using “feeding my child” as a defence, it is frankly outrageous that the judge has decided to make this completely arbitrary requirement to the court case. Particularly when it’s abundantly clear that the climate crisis was the reason these two took the actions they did.
Absolutely embarrassing that these people have got six weeks in prison for using a legal argument. A waste of resources, a distortion of the justice process, and the judge should be ashamed.
“It seems to me that the desires of the defendants to speak about the motivations of their actions is that they believe that the jury will look at the case in a moral way rather than in a legal way. That would be wholly wrong.”
Anyone else not have a problem with juries taking morality into account?
Democracy my ass. The “freedom of speech” and “free country” bullshit this government and media spews is a complete load of bollocks. The UK is not much different to a dictatorship.
Seems like a conflict of interest for judges to be able to set the punishment for contempt of their court.
They weren’t acquitted the jury returned a hung verdict there will be a re trial as the article says. They had a court order to prevent them using the defence of climate change which is why they were found guilty of being in contempt. They then accused the judge of having done nothing about climate change.
They really need to stop doing clickbait headlines like this. Or people need to start reading articles.
The same judge, Silas Reid, gave a transport police officer zero weeks of jail for soliciting sex from a 12 year old (who was an undercover officer) over Snapchat. He gave zero weeks jail to another transport police officer who [sexually assaulted someone three times](https://www.itv.com/news/london/2022-11-18/btp-officer-handed-suspended-sentence-after-sexually-assaulting-colleague). They needed to say they were groping the road to tug at the judges sympathies on this one
How is it possible that this pair get jail time yet car thefts in my area are up and when they finally catch one of the scrotes they get a slap on the wrist
Politically agree with the judge, and using your political views to defend criminal acts isn’t a good defence and really just shows your doubling down.
But, it’s bad when the left do this it’s bad when the right do this. Judges shouldn’t overrule juries, if it wasn’t a fair trike or the jury was in contempt, retry it.
Country becomes more authoritarian by the day, this stuff is heavily disproportionate.
I’m still kind of confused by all this. Last I checked, just being an annoying prick isn’t a crime and that’s really the extent of these Insulate fellas. As much as I dislike them, it’s worrying to see this kind of thing from the courts.
The judge making out like the court has an iron clad monopoly on justice… look at ancient law, Hammurabi, look at the Nazis, look how recently women couldn’t vote, look at when it became illegal to rape to rape your wife.
This judge is part of the problem, not understanding that there are principles that transcend the courtroom and the statute book.
The climate crisis is entirely relevant to their actions. To insist that they remain silent on the very cause that motivated them to undertak5their illegal actions is quite frankly ridiculous.
I seriously think the human race with not survive this climate catastrophe, not with this attitude.
I’m not a fan of Insulate Britain’s tactics (I think they piss the wider public off instead of winning them over), but this is ludicrous and the exact opposite of any kind of justice. It should be perfectly acceptable for them to cite the reasons for why they did what they did as part of their defence and/or mitigation. This judge deserves any contempt he believes he was shown.
In other news, a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving family has been imprisoned for mentioning that his family was starving in his defence.
Theres a lot of complaints here for a story thats very thin on the ground with detail.
How could they be expected to honestly explain their actions without mentioning the climate crisis?
We seem to be reaching a point where the conflict between justice and the law is becoming very very obvious …. Seems like the law is incapable of dealing with the big issues
The arguments here kind of remind me of football pundits saying a referee got a decision wrong, because they personally disagree with how a rule is interpreted now.
Anything you say can be taken down and used against you in court. Especially anything you say in court.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
I don’t like your defence as it manipulates based on thing I dislike, I’m banning you from mentioning that thing I don’t like.
The predictable “law is the law” brigade is out in force.
The government made noisy protests illegal.
The government took away the right to vote unless you have some ID from an approved list.
The government made it illegal to leave your home.
When you’re a slave to “the law” in that simpleton manner, you end up being used. They’ll come for you for something you care about eventually
I understand that the offence wasn’t proven and why they were jailed for contempt (often it’s a 2 year sentence) I also think they were guilty of causing a nuisance, but what they did was surely not an imprisonable offence on its own, but then surely mitigating circumstances would be their stance on climate change, so why were they banned from mentioning it? I know they were told not to, but I think that’s wrong in a country with free speech? (Allegedly)
Also they’d be better campaigning on the bigger issues of container ships running the lowest grade of diesel, pumping out 7000 times the sulphur of a diesel car per litre, massive global mining for rare earth metals and lithium for our tech and electric cars, those quarry trucks burn 500 litres of diesel an hour and that’s the new ones. We all share the same air as the rest of the world and consumerism creates the demand for massively polluting mining, transporting and manufacturing. Stop buying crap you don’t need then letting it rot in landfill and remember the most environmentally friendly car you will ever have is the one you already own.
That’s appalling. If you’re arrested for protesting, it is important context that your actions were a protest. I hope they find a sympathetic barrister to help them appeal.
Politicians who take bribes from fossil fuel industry get a pay rise, whilst people trying to help the environment get imprisoned.. yeh UK is so democratic and not corrupt lol
Judge controls the presentation of evidence and rules on admission . . .the same applies if the jury discovers (e.g. by going on Facebook on their phone in the jury room) that a defendant has a long criminal record. . The juror may think they are doing society a favour by telling their fellow jurors that the defendant is a hardened criminal but it is contempt of court. . If the two defendants felt that the judge’s direction not to mention climate change as a defence was wrong then they could have appealed that direction . . Instead they chose to breach the clear direction given by the court. . . Off to chokey, Blood
I personally think folks need to just wrap their heads around the notion that we have a legal system, not necessarily a justice system
I swear to tell the truth, the *whole* truth and nothing but the truth.
I would find any such person not guilty. If a judge prevents you from using certain language or motivations, it prevents you from staging an effective defence. It also removes the right to be judged by a jury of your peers. The judge will still punish you if he doesn’t like the jury’s verdict.