Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. 

One might think that the jury was quietly directed. 

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

Yes, I wonder how many criminal damage cases get a trial by jury in Crown Court. 

[dave the builder]

The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. 

One might think that the jury was quietly directed. 

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

Yes, I wonder how many criminal damage cases get a trial by jury in Crown Court. 

you'd have to do considerable damage to something expensive to justify the cost .

I guess the defendants won't be paying 

[LC0112G]

The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. 

One might think that the jury was quietly directed. 

Your problem lies in your over simplistic view of the law. You can legally destroy other peoples property under certain circumstances. If we assume the prosecution was under Section 1 or the Criminal damage act 1971 then Section 1 of that act states :

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

Note (my) highlighted section. The Jury presumably decided the defendants had "lawful excuse" (or probably more correctly the prosecution failed to prove they didn't have lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt), and therefore they were not guilty of the offence. The full act is available here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents

There aren't many absolute offences in English law whereby you're automatically guilty by virtue of a single act. There are usually other things that "qualify" your guilt. For instance - you aren't automatically guilty of a speeding offence even if a speed camera records you doing 100MPH - A NIP has to be issued within certain timescales, the case has to be layed within 6 months, etc, etc. All the conditions for guilt have to be met - not just the basic offence.

[LC0112G]

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.

[Sir Tigger KC]

The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. 

One might think that the jury was quietly directed. 

Your problem lies in your over simplistic view of the law. You can legally destroy other peoples property under certain circumstances. If we assume the prosecution was under Section 1 or the Criminal damage act 1971 then Section 1 of that act states :

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

Note (my) highlighted section. The Jury presumably decided the defendants had "lawful excuse" (or probably more correctly the prosecution failed to prove they didn't have lawful excuse beyond reasonable doubt), and therefore they were not guilty of the offence. The full act is available here : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents

There aren't many absolute offences in English law whereby you're automatically guilty by virtue of a single act. There are usually other things that "qualify" your guilt. For instance - you aren't automatically guilty of a speeding offence even if a speed camera records you doing 100MPH - A NIP has to be issued within certain timescales, the case has to be layed within 6 months, etc, etc. All the conditions for guilt have to be met - not just the basic offence.

I think your problem lies in your simplistic view that the law was actually applied in this case. 

[LC0112G]

I think your problem lies in your simplistic view that the law was actually applied in this case. 

Which part of the law wasn't applied?

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

It seems the law was applied, but obviously justice wasnt. Shouldnt be too shocked I suppose as they are only distant cousins. 

[johnnydog]

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.

Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The juries job was to decide if they were guilty or not guilty of criminal damage. That was it, and despite the fact that there was video evidence and they cheerfully admitted to their crime, they were found not guilty. 

One might think that the jury was quietly directed. 

Yep.....criminal damage to start with but mission creep spread to  Colston being a very naughty boy 300 years ago and BLM and their supporters being all goodness and light.

Politically driven rather than driven by the rule of law being applied.....in my view.

[Rangie]

Would like to see the vandals walk around Brixton at night and see the kind of respect they get from " people of colour"  sweet f all I would guess .(mustn't upset anyone by calling them black.)

[LC0112G]

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.

Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.

Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf

AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. 

If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
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/
 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.

Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.

Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf

AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. 

If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
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/

I have missed my calling in life.I should have been a district court judge or a Magistrate. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Does also raise the question as to why they were tried in the first place... Surely a guilty plea at the initial magistrates hearing would have been enough to go straight to sentencing

They didn't plead guilty. A magistrates court cannot try any case where a prison sentence greater than 6 months is a possibility. Criminal damage carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison( Section4 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/4) , so can only be tried in the Crown Court.

Whether it's the way you worded it, but that isn't entirely correct. Just because Criminal Damage carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years, doesn't mean cases can only be tried in a Crown Court.
Magistrates Courts can try and sentence cases of Criminal Damage, depending on the seriousness of the offence. It is classed as a 'triable either way' offence, meaning it can be tried in a Magistrates Court or Crown Court. However, once the evidence is heard if the likely penalty with the facts taken into account, or the defendants previous conviction history, the Magistrates deem they don't have sufficient powers to sentence the defendant, then they will send the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
The Prosecution too can ask a Magistrates Court that a case of Criminal Damage, after a Guilty Plea, is referred to the Crown Court for sentencing if the circumstances, seriousness of the offence, or the defendants previous convictions, the likely sentence is in excess of 6 months.
But Criminal Damage offences can be heard in a Magistrates Court.

Fair enough. I didn't check whether is was 'either way' or 'on indictment only'. It appears sentencing guidelines say up to £5K damage is Mags only, £5K-£10K is either way, and £10K+ is Crown Court only.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/criminal-damage.pdf

AIUI the defendant can opt for Crown Court on an either way charge, and in this sort of case I suspect the defendants believed (correctly as it turned out) they were more likely to be found not guilty (aka get away with it) before a jury of 12 civilians than before a grizzeled old district judge who misses the black cap days, or 3 'hang-em-high' magistrates. 

If anyone is really interested in the way these sorts of cases are handled....
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/

I have missed my calling in life.I should have been a district court judge or a Magistrate. 

You'd be known as 'the hanging judge' like in the old westerns set in Tombstone or Dead man creek.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The only people you'd let off is the French because you love their cars.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Bloody thing hasnt turned a wheel in weeks. 
I need to find out if it needs a new turbo. Then decide if its worth spending the money to do it, considering it has a nasty rattle from the top end.
Then again, If a scrap it, I spent over £300 on it in November and that will be money down the drain. Plus I will have to replace it.
That would mean flogging either the Omega, or more likely, the Boxster.