For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 46
User avatar
By kanga
#1911728
<aviation connexion :oops: >

"Cotswolds man cleared of shining laser at police helicopter which he thought was 'alien craft'"

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... er-7090137

'.. District Judge Wattam told Mr Wilsdon: “It is not in dispute that during the early hours of November 13, 2020 a police helicopter was tracking would be burglars over the village of Blockley, near Moreton-in-Marsh, but you struck the aircraft with a laser beam three of four times.

"This is an extremely dangerous thing to be doing. However you have relied on the defence of having a reasonable excuse for shining the laser beam towards this helicopter."
..
“I don’t want to make too much of what Mr Wilsdon did, but I accept that his behaviour was not logical. In fact it was clearly illogical, nonsensical and dangerous.

“But the fact is that there is a clear medical opinion that Mr Wilsdon was suffering from a cognitive impairment at the time. .."
User avatar
By Rob P
#1912491
It's hard to imagine any sensible justification (I'm excluding a desire for martyrdom) for a not guilty plea.

Rob P
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912710
Rob P wrote:It's hard to imagine any sensible justification (I'm excluding a desire for martyrdom) for a not guilty plea.

Rob P


Is the case law set by the statue in the river case a good enough justification for a not guilty plea and an attempt to get the same result? But then, INAL….
User avatar
By kanga
#1912714
Rjk983 wrote:..

Is the case law set by the statue in the river case a good enough justification for a not guilty plea and an attempt to get the same result? But then, INAL….


IANAL either, but the Bristol case had the appearance of a 'perverse' jury rather than a Judge- or Appeal-declared judgement. It would seem likely that it would be easier for the defendants in court to cite an example of the latter rather than rely on a repeat of the former.
Newfy liked this
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912744
@kanga I found the whole thing a bit perverse to be honest.

As I understood it all from the meeja:

Defendants threw statue in river.
Defendants proudly claimed to have thrown statue in river
Defendants charged with throwing statue in river
Defendants plead not guilty
Defendants then proclaim in court that they did it
Judge doesn’t order the jury to find them guilty even though they clearly did it
Jury finds them not guilty, but not because they didn’t do it.

I can see this lot going the same way.

Can someone explain why the judge isn’t allowed to order the jury to find them guilty if they plead not guilty but then proudly exclaim they did it and would do it again.

I’m all for the jury system when they are being used to rule on the facts as put forward by the prosecution, but the way the system is being manipulated to try to get the jury to decide on what the law should be as opposed to whether the defendant broke it is surely wrong and will undermine confidence in the entire jury system.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912773
Can someone explain why the judge isn’t allowed to order the jury to find them guilty if they plead not guilty but then proudly exclaim they did it and would do it again.


Yes.

A judge can order a jury to acquit, usually after a successful submission that there is no case to answer, but a judge cannot direct a jury to convict under any circumstances. If the defendant pleads guilty there is nothing for the jury to do.

If a defendant admits the offence to his legal representatives and still seeks to plead not guilty then his legal representatives will withdraw, as they cannot defend someone they know to be guilty.

If they successfully plead not guilty and are released but then "own up" there's little that can be done because you can't be tried twice for the same offence. I think that the authorities might be able to appeal to the High Court, but my very limited legal knowledge is now exhausted.
kanga, Rjk983 liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1912786
johnm wrote:.. a judge cannot direct a jury to convict under any circumstances... you can't be tried twice for the same offence. ...


IANAL, but AIUI:

yes to first. This is a 'Common Law' (ie, not under Statute) safeguard going back, I believe, to reactions to cases many centuries ago, possibly even under Henry VIII of England, when judges could order juries to convict, and if they failed to they could be detained until they did.

Again, AIUI, in England and Wales at least, a prosecution on the same charge of a previously acquitted defendant can be given leave to be brought if (my gist) 'substantial new evidence not reasonably available to the earlier Prosecution, has emerged'. It may further be that such leave can be granted only by a higher Court on application by DPP, not by DPP alone. Again, AIUI, this arises from a pertinent change in Statute, overriding the earlier Common Law. ISTR this provision is what enabled the second trial of some of those accused of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The defendants so convicted later had been among those acquitted in an earlier private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family, that earlier acquittal having been in effect directed by the earlier trial judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of ... n_Lawrence
johnm liked this
User avatar
By Mz Hedy
#1912816
I2ANAL but IIRC the Colston Statue activists successfully relied on defence to criminal damage that the 'defendant believed they are preventing a greater harm'. The jury chose to accept it (the defence needs to succeed only on balance of probabilities - more likely than not). I don't recall what 'greater harm' the activists believed was being prevented. In more normal circumstances the issue wouldn't even get as far being investigated as an offence, let alone charge and prosecution, eg. breaking down someone's back door to rescue them from a burning house.

The interesting bit is that this defence could be applied to damage inflicted in all sorts of envirnmental and political causes. As far as I'm aware, juries can't set precedent so a different jury in a different case may take a different view.
kanga liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912817
As far as I'm aware, juries can't set precedent so a different jury in a different case may take a different view.


Correct
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1912898
Mz Hedy wrote:I2ANAL but IIRC the Colston Statue activists successfully relied on defence to criminal damage that the 'defendant believed they are preventing a greater harm'.


Indeed. But, they brought no evidence in support of their assertion.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculous legal abuse that we elect governments to apprehend.
User avatar
By Mz Hedy
#1912958
eltonioni wrote:
Mz Hedy wrote:I2ANAL but IIRC the Colston Statue activists successfully relied on defence to criminal damage that the 'defendant believed they are preventing a greater harm'.

Indeed. But, they brought no evidence in support of their assertion...

(You're lucky - I accidentaly lost my long reply :( )

In short - they did bring a lot of evidence, both from the defendants under oath (and doubtless cross-examined) and also by an expert witness.

There are differences of opinion about how the Judge allowed the trial to proceed, but it seems entirely likely that the jury made their decision rationally on the basis of evidence presented.

Refs:
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Did-the-Colston-trial-go-wrong.pdf
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/

NB a. they're long reads but can be skim-read; b. they reach different conclusions
eltonioni liked this
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1913004
Mz Hedy wrote:I2ANAL but IIRC the Colston Statue activists successfully relied on defence to criminal damage that the 'defendant believed they are preventing a greater harm'. The jury chose to accept it (the defence needs to succeed only on balance of probabilities - more likely than not). I don't recall what 'greater harm' the activists believed was being prevented. In more normal circumstances the issue wouldn't even get as far being investigated as an offence, let alone charge and prosecution, eg. breaking down someone's back door to rescue them from a burning house.

The interesting bit is that this defence could be applied to damage inflicted in all sorts of envirnmental and political causes. As far as I'm aware, juries can't set precedent so a different jury in a different case may take a different view.


Thanks to all who have contributed, taking this explanation and twisting slightly. Presumably this ‘preventing greater harm’ defence could be employed by an owner of a 4x4 who is woken in the night by the commotion as some activists are slashing his/her tyres. The owner goes downstairs, collecting a cricket bat on the way “self defence, the activist has a knife” and sets about the activist so that they don’t slash somebody else’s tyres, that person could potentially drive off without noticing and lose control of their vehicle, ploughing through the queue to the local puppy farm. It is clearly the 4x4 owners civic duty to prevent the activists.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1913007
Rjk983 wrote:
Mz Hedy wrote:I2ANAL but IIRC the Colston Statue activists successfully relied on defence to criminal damage that the 'defendant believed they are preventing a greater harm'. The jury chose to accept it (the defence needs to succeed only on balance of probabilities - more likely than not). I don't recall what 'greater harm' the activists believed was being prevented. In more normal circumstances the issue wouldn't even get as far being investigated as an offence, let alone charge and prosecution, eg. breaking down someone's back door to rescue them from a burning house.

The interesting bit is that this defence could be applied to damage inflicted in all sorts of envirnmental and political causes. As far as I'm aware, juries can't set precedent so a different jury in a different case may take a different view.


Thanks to all who have contributed, taking this explanation and twisting slightly. Presumably this ‘preventing greater harm’ defence could be employed by an owner of a 4x4 who is woken in the night by the commotion as some activists are slashing his/her tyres. The owner goes downstairs, collecting a cricket bat on the way “self defence, the activist has a knife” and sets about the activist so that they don’t slash somebody else’s tyres, that person could potentially drive off without noticing and lose control of their vehicle, ploughing through the queue to the local puppy farm. It is clearly the 4x4 owners civic duty to prevent the activists.


If I was on the jury, the 4x4 owner would walk!
User avatar
By Rob P
#1913009
I have little sympathy for the 'protestors' attacking chelsea tractors, it's pointless and probably owes more to envy than to wanting to improve the lot of the planet. But I feel I must point out they are armed with lentils, not with knives.

Rob P
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 46