Whether my garden wall (that's cost me £100) or if it's a £1billion statue doesn't make a difference. If someone kicks one down what's the difference in criminal damage ?
@hhyftrftdr My point was (without going over old ground) persons being filmed causing criminal damage and getting acquitted. Everyone could see the evidence of the crime (criminal damage) taking place. Perhaps I'm a too old school person who still thinks that if you do the crime you do the time. I don't give a **** about which statues get toppled or not but those that do topple them should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent regardless of their so called beliefs. Criminal Damage is Criminal Damage no matter what excuses are put forward.
But they were found not guilty of criminal damage. Due legal process was followed and that was the verdict, regardless of whether you like or agree with it or not. So no crime was committed and thus no time to serve. It seems you're struggling to reconcile what you saw vs the verdict given, which suggests you think a 'mistake' was made, however.....(the following aren't my words but those of someone involved in the legal system I vaguely know)
It’s important to remember that just because the offence is prima facie made out that doesn’t mean someone is guilty of an offence.
Most statutory offences have specified defences which are available to the accused to raise. Pretty much every regulatory offence has a due diligence defence, for example. Criminal damage has a number of statutory defences. In addition most offences have common law defences that are also available to defendants such as necessity and duress.
So just because someone plainly seems to have committed the act, does not necessarily mean they are guilty of the offence in law.
This is principally what the jury were asked to consider, not whether the statue was damaged (increase in value arguments notwithstanding).
@hhyftrftdr I agree wholeheartedly with what you've said but what's good for one is good for another.
So no precedent has been set then.
In the case of the OP, if he's charged and it goes to court then it will follow the same legal process as the Colston Four.
What happens after that depends on the evidence and testimonies given and the jury (assuming there is one) coming to a verdict accordingly.
On a side note, is it criminal damage if the object rockets in value after the event? (as has happened with Colston) The legal guy I vaguely know genuinely didn't know when this was put to him, or wasn't sure enough to answer either way.
Phil, any ideas?
No, sorry.
Crime was never really my thing. However, I believe that the offence is a summary only offence (so Magistrates, not Crown Court, and lesser penalties) if the damage is less than £5,000
Law (like, say, medicine) has increased out of all proportion. There was a time when I thought I was competent at nearly all fields of Law. Now? Not just that I'm out of the loop. It's impossible to be even competent at more than a few fields of Law.
I would be like an anaesthetist giving my views on Covid
Precedent A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The Lawyer for the Defendant will call on that case as precedent to his as rule of thumb.
me finks could apply in b.b.c. case only put up as legal eagle not sure.
Precedent A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The Lawyer for the Defendant will call on that case as precedent to his as rule of thumb.
me finks could apply in b.b.c. case only put up as legal eagle not sure.
Interesting definition, that.
If anyone is genuinely interested, you can look up all sorts in relation to questions of fact and questions of law (different rules apply) and whether a Court can bind itself or only lower Courts (surprisingly the answer varies a lot).
A Lawyer's answer would be-not binding. Might be persuasive (they are 2 totally different things).
But to a non-lawyer? Which of course will include a juror (if, and only if, there is a trial by jury). Let's just say sometimes arguments don't necessarily follow the path pure lawyers think.
I think your missing the point as to why he did that. It will be rather interesting to see what is in his statement. I’d presume it’s not just because of Gill.
Statues or works that are regarded as offensive. Museums and Stately Homes are full of what some might regard as offensive art,some priceless. I wouldn’t want to give hyyf any ideas though. Disclaimer.
The original case went to Court. IMHO the Government should have won. But it did not-these people were acquitted.
The "appeal" is nothing of the sort. These people, rightly or wrongly, remain Not Guilty.
What this is really all about is spending public money to "prove" that the Government should have won last time. Even though it didn't. The time to try and prove this is in a future real case.
Comments
Crime was never really my thing. However, I believe that the offence is a summary only offence (so Magistrates, not Crown Court, and lesser penalties) if the damage is less than £5,000
Law (like, say, medicine) has increased out of all proportion. There was a time when I thought I was competent at nearly all fields of Law. Now? Not just that I'm out of the loop. It's impossible to be even competent at more than a few fields of Law.
I would be like an anaesthetist giving my views on Covid
A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
The Lawyer for the Defendant will call on that case as precedent to his as rule of thumb.
me finks could apply in b.b.c. case only put up as legal eagle not sure.
If anyone is genuinely interested, you can look up all sorts in relation to questions of fact and questions of law (different rules apply) and whether a Court can bind itself or only lower Courts (surprisingly the answer varies a lot).
A Lawyer's answer would be-not binding. Might be persuasive (they are 2 totally different things).
But to a non-lawyer? Which of course will include a juror (if, and only if, there is a trial by jury). Let's just say sometimes arguments don't necessarily follow the path pure lawyers think.
The Big Boys got all sorts of loop holes.
It will be rather interesting to see what is in his statement.
I’d presume it’s not just because of Gill.
Statues or works that are regarded as offensive.
Museums and Stately Homes are full of what some might regard as offensive art,some priceless.
I wouldn’t want to give hyyf any ideas though. Disclaimer.
The toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston was a "violent" act, appeal court judges have ruled.
They also ruled human rights protections were not available as a defence to the so-called Colston Four, who were acquitted of criminal damage.
The appeal comes after then attorney general Suella Braverman referred the case for legal clarification.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-63059300
The original case went to Court. IMHO the Government should have won. But it did not-these people were acquitted.
The "appeal" is nothing of the sort. These people, rightly or wrongly, remain Not Guilty.
What this is really all about is spending public money to "prove" that the Government should have won last time. Even though it didn't. The time to try and prove this is in a future real case.
Not this meaningless pantomime.