Academic level discourse

[JENNYJET]

What is Precedent if not previous cases, often decided by a jury? Of course a panel of judges can form an opinion that can be used as a precedent but , as taught, with new law, a test case is brought before a court with a jury deciding and a precedent is sent.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I get the essence of what is been said. A jury doesn’t set precedent. However, it’s irrelevant, as a judge will. Based on the Jury’s consensus, a judge will look at previous cases and set a precedent.

 

[KARFA]

I get the essence of what is been said. A jury doesn’t set precedent. However, it’s irrelevant, as a judge will. Based on the Jury’s consensus, a judge will look at previous cases and set a precedent.

A judge doesn’t direct based on previous jury decisions, only the law as it is. Points of law are only decided by previous judges.

I don’t know how clear this can be - this case sets no precedent whatsoever. Anyone who says it does does not understand how criminal law and cases work.

 

[KARFA]

What is Precedent if not previous cases, often decided by a jury? Of course a panel of judges can form an opinion that can be used as a precedent but , as taught, with new law, a test case is brought before a court with a jury deciding and a precedent is sent.

Juries do not set precedent. You clearly have an incorrect belief from somewhere. Could you go and do some research if you don’t believe me.

Any jury member being found to try and apply their knowledge from the press of this case in a different case would be liable to challenge and removal from the jury.

EDIT: here is one of many articles post Colston which confirm that no legal precedent. Nothing has changed.

The acquittal of the Colston protestors and the implications for future cases (via Passle)

On 5th January 2022, four Black Lives Matter protestors who admitted tearing down a statue of Edward Colston, were acquitted of criminal damage. The out...

insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Juries do not set precedent. You clearly have an incorrect belief from somewhere. Could you go and do some research if you don’t believe me.

Any jury member being found to try and apply their knowledge from the press of this case in a different case would be liable to challenge and removal from the jury.

EDIT: here is one of many articles post Colston which confirm that no legal precedent. Nothing has changed.

The acquittal of the Colston protestors and the implications for future cases (via Passle)

On 5th January 2022, four Black Lives Matter protestors who admitted tearing down a statue of Edward Colston, were acquitted of criminal damage. The out...

insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

My understanding of a legal precedent coincides with yours, KARFA. In fact, there are three types of precedent.

Original precedent where a judge must come to a decision without following a previous decision, as the facts in the case have not come before a court before.

Binding precedent where a future judge in a lower court must follow the decision of a previous judge in a higher court, if the case facts are similar.

Persuasive precedent made in other jurisdictions but they are not binding on courts in England and Wales, although they might provide useful guidance to a judge.

I believe that, as with JENNYJET, you speak from a relevant background in the subject, KARFA.

I claim no formal qualifications in the subject although many years ago I did study criminal law towards degree level but circumstances beyond my control at the time led to a switch of direction before I reached that particular target. When I say that in my time the Larceny Act of 1916 was the principal legislation regarding theft etc (before the 1968 Theft Act had seen the light of day) it might come as no surprise that I'm a bit rusty on the subject these days, so I'm always happy to listen to those with greater and more up-to-date knowledge such as JENNYJET and yourself.

 

[KARFA]

Yes.

Bear in mind what has been noted already - namely that the jury's deliberations are secret and remain so, that jurors cannot speak about the deliberations even after the trial, that no reasoning is given for the verdicts when delivered by the jury foreman or forewoman, and there is no written reasoning for their decision which will exist.

When you note all that you can see logically a jury decision can't possibly provide any precedent - how could you have a precedent when we don't even know on what basis they decided not to find them guilty of criminal damage in this case ?

Even if the exact same situation were to play out again with different people, and the exact same charges were brought, there is no reason to believe the defendants would be any more or less likely to be found guilty based on what happens in the Colston case.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

There are some words that in isolation, are just words. However, given use in context, are either offensive or aggressive, but whatever it's useage, consequences matter even if we disagree.

Uncle Boris and Auntie Kier understand such matters as recent events show.

Given my personal status, I can understand, hate speech being prominent.

Rather then continue the discussion in the thread I thought I would move this over to this thread.

It certainly has been an interesting week in terms of what's happened. Boris should never have said that. ever. He is intelligent man however and knows that Jimmy Saville subject/none prosecution is a something that will speak to some of the labour voters or those that lent the vote to the conservatives and look like to be heading back to labour. Not all - but only some. So when his back is against the wall in terms of polling it's no real surprise that he said what he said. After all this is Johnson. A man with a very broken morale compass.

However I don't believe what happened with Kier was genuine. The crowd and the people shouting/screaming was. Kier just going for a stroll down the street was a complete and utter set up. Someone who has been DPP, a QC, has a 1st class bachelors in law does not, when there is substantial threat to his life decide "tell you what I'll take the street instead" - he is very very intelligent. Walking out into that is VERY staged (as opposed to taking the car for example which he does 9 times out of 10) and is been used as "look at the words of the prime minster have done".

Pity. If Kier had done his job of been leader of the labour opposition for the last 2 years properly, properly scrutinised the inaccurate data, been an opposition party to useless and unnecessary restrictions (food with Alcohol, table of 6, tier restrictions I could go on), been outspoken abut the tyrannically leader of Wales (who's no longer Labour but more Communist Party of Wales) and his useless power grabbing restrictions, rather then calling for restrictions harder/faster and far more often then necessary then he wouldn't of needed to do that stunt above. As he would be leading in the polls no matter what.

I guess what I'm saying is - Boris/Kier understand the the matters. But both are playing a big staged game. And are useless.

 

[JENNYJET]

I cannot offer any proof but I do pay attention to what is being fed to us by our Media. And I suggest manipulation on a grand scale assuming the audience is dumb. Sir Kier Starmer is a senior lawyerr and shall remain so for life as the granting of QC status is for life. He is one of Her Majesties legal councellors at law and a Privy Councellor. Boris Johnson is a media darling, ex journalist and all round entertainer that once taking the cash, belongs to the media. Also highly educated. Also a Privy Councellor.

The sad conclusion is to my mind, they have both failed at being 'street wise' if you like.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Demonstrators/protestors/activists, call them what you will, invariably justify their disruption of many people's everyday lives by saying they have a right to protest. Which it seems they have as long as it does not breach any laws.

What about the right of other people caught up in such demonstrations/marches to go about their everyday lives without let or hindrance?

Whilst there are obvious practical difficulties in ensuring that both rights are allowed to proceed I wonder how the law regards the apparent dichotomy.