Not guilty of obstructing a train

[Jan Mayen]

I see climate activists have been found not guilty of obstructing a DLR service, despite getting on the roof. I'll post a link if I can find one

 

[Adlington]

Jury clears Extinction Rebellions activists from obstructing railway

Three Extinction Rebellion activists have been cleared over a 2019 stunt which saw them cause 77 minutes of disruption to a central London train.

www.standard.co.uk

Three Extinction Rebellion activists have been cleared over a 2019 stunt which saw them cause 77 minutes of disruption to a central London train.

They were strongly motivated by their Christian faith...

 

[WesternLancer]

Jury clears Extinction Rebellions activists from obstructing railway

Three Extinction Rebellion activists have been cleared over a 2019 stunt which saw them cause 77 minutes of disruption to a central London train.

www.standard.co.uk

They were strongly motivated by their Christian faith...

One to remember if you need to jam the doors open to wait for your late mate to arrive at the station (so that you can continue your journey to church for example)

 

[matt_world2004]

15 obstructed trains caused by someone gluing themselves to an electric ,clean vehicle

One wonders how many people decided to get an taxi to canary wharf instead when their train was blocked

 

[Adlington]

One to remember if you need to jam the doors open to wait for your late mate to arrive at the station (so that you can continue your journey to church for example)

Not applicable to journeys to synagogues, mosques, temples &c

 

[WesternLancer]

Not applicable to journeys to synagogues, mosques, temples &c

Legal precedent now.....

 

[stuu]

Legal precedent now.....

No it isn't. Jury decisions do not make law - if someone is found not guilty of murder that doesn't make murder legal

 

[Falcon1200]

But will the verdict encourage others to pull similar stupid stunts, expecting to get away scot-free because their motive was (to them) honourable ?

 

[WesternLancer]

No it isn't. Jury decisions do not make law - if someone is found not guilty of murder that doesn't make murder legal

drat....

 

[Mcr Warrior]

But will the verdict encourage others to pull similar stupid stunts, expecting to get away scot-free because their motive was (to them) honourable ?

Believe a similar concern was raised when the persons deemed responsible for the Edward Colston statue ending up in Bristol harbour were subsequently acquitted of criminal damage.

 

[deltic]

Good to see the Jury system working well

 

[nanstallon]

A bit like the days when a child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread - many juries refused to convict even when the evidence was overwhelming. It is, even nowadays, a useful check on over zealous police. Perhaps, in light of police reluctance to prosecute the rich and powerful for covid offences and being heavy handed when ordinary folk commit such offences, this still has a genuine purpose, although covid offences probably don't involve juries.

 

[yorksrob]

A bit like the days when a child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread - many juries refused to convict even when the evidence was overwhelming. It is, even nowadays, a useful check on over zealous police. Perhaps, in light of police reluctance to prosecute the rich and powerful for covid offences and being heavy handed when ordinary folk commit such offences, this still has a genuine purpose, although covid offences probably don't involve juries.

It is. The jury system is vital to keep the judiciary on the straight and narrow.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I'm of Christian faith, there's nothing in the new testament that tells anyone to delay DLR trains.
The core belief of love thy neighbour should imply letting trains travel without annoying the passengers on board.
Court made a mistake here, they should be fined, given community work, or a short jail span.
I do support the use of juries fully, but of course they can make mistakes, as can judges.
This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

Trains are the best way to transport massive loads of people efficiently.
If climate change is their concern, they should glue themselves to four wheel drive cars parked on the street.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm of Christian faith, there's nothing in the new testament that tells anyone to delay DLR trains.
The core belief of love thy neighbour should imply letting trains travel without annoying the passengers on board.
Court made a mistake here, they should be fined, given community work, or a short jail span.
I do support the use of juries fully, but of course they can make mistakes, as can judges.
This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

Trains are the best way to transport massive loads of people efficiently.
If climate change is their concern, they should glue themselves to four wheel drive cars parked on the street.

well put IMHO

 

[D365]

how did extinction rebellion pull this off?

 

[deltic]

This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

One could argue that the whole point of juries is to ensure that justice is done and not that the law is followed. The ordinary person has little say on the laws that are enacted in a country, they are mainly there to protect property rights rather than people. A jury picked randomly better represents local public opinion for good or ill at a moment of time.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think people should adopt the tactics the defendants did, but without being at the trial or, at the very least, seeing a full transcript of it, I wouldn't presume to comment on why the jury made the decision it did. So far as I know, it was the verdict of all the jurors too, which is maybe an indication that was the right verdict. I suspect the age of two of the defendants, as much as their proclaimed Christian faith, may well have played a part.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

One could argue that the whole point of juries is to ensure that justice is done and not that the law is followed. The ordinary person has little say on the laws that are enacted in a country, they are mainly there to protect property rights rather than people. A jury picked randomly better represents local public opinion for good or ill at a moment of time.

Good point, juries are there to stop lawyers going crazy with small print laws, that's why they are important.
But nevertheless, there's no justification in blocking an electric commuter train in a busy hour claiming religion and climate change, as both of those things are not anti-train.

 

[DerekC]

It is. The jury system is vital to keep the judiciary on the straight and narrow.

Good point, juries are there to stop lawyers going crazy with small print laws, that's why they are important.

I agree with the principle that juries with the ability to apply common sense are a very good thing, but it's politicians and parliament who create laws, not the judiciary and lawyers.

 

[Gostav]

I agree with the principle that juries with the ability to apply common sense are a very good thing

One question that comes to mind, does the jury are public transport users?

 

[PG]

One question that comes to mind, does the jury are public transport users?

Perhaps the defendants legal representatives profiled the jury in an attempt to get non public transport users...?

 

[DarloRich]

This is a clear case, the law is in black and white and they committed the crime, whether they had an honourable but false cause or not.

Court made a mistake here, they should be fined, given community work, or a short jail span.

I assume you heard all the evidence to make such a statement. You clearly didn't persuade the other members of the jury.

I do support the use of juries fully, but of course they can make mistakes, as can judges.

As long as they make decisions that you agree with based on having heard none of the case and read a few lines in your favourite rag/favourite social media commentator?

Good point, juries are there to stop lawyers going crazy with small print laws, that's why they are important.

No they aren't. You have no idea what you are talking about. The role of the jury is to decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty based on the facts presented to them

One question that comes to mind, does the jury are public transport users?

What point are you trying to make? I am sure that of 12 randomly selected members of the public on a jury at least some of them will use public transport from time to time. In any event their use of public transport does not impact on their ability to hear the case and consider the evidence.

it's politicians and parliament who create laws, not the judiciary and lawyers.

and no law has been created here. There is no precedent set. A jury heard the case and made a decision based on what they heard.

how did extinction rebellion pull this off?

They got a good brief!

Perhaps the defendants legal representatives profiled the jury in an attempt to get non public transport users...?

Could you explain how this would happen under English law?

 

[PG]

Could you explain how this would happen under English law?

Since I'm not legally qualified then no I can't explain.

 

[yorkie]

The outcome is a disgrace; the system is clearly broken somehow.

 

[DarloRich]

The outcome is a disgrace; the system is clearly broken somehow.

No it isn't. Just because you, who heard none of the case, have decided it is a "disgrace" does not make it so. You may disagree with the verdict but you have no idea how the decision was reached. The system worked correctly. The jury heard all the evidence and decided to acquit. That is to be respected.

Perhaps you would prefer a Diplock court. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[yorkie]

No it isn't. Just because you, who heard none of the case, have decided it is a "disgrace" does not make it so. You may disagree with the verdict but you have no idea how the decision was reached. The system worked correctly. The jury heard all the evidence and decided to acquit. That is to be respected.

I can't be made to have respect for such an outcome or a system that produces it.

Your unwavering support for letting dubious individuals off the hook time ad time again is hardly going to change our minds; quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[DarloRich]

I can't be made to have respect for such an outcome or a system that produces it.

What would you suggest to replace the "broken" jury system? It has worked well for quite few years!

With regard to this case could you set out upon what you have based your opinion? Did you hear all of the evidence presented? I am sure you haven't just jumped to a conclusion based on a newspaper report.

 

[Gostav]

I think such decisions can explain this situation, now I understand why the workers are indifferent to protesters who break into the site, it is lucky my country doesn't have such things.

The video shows Bluebell Woods Protection Camp (An anti-HS2 group) invaded the HS2 site and workers and police just stand to keep their distance from trespassers and one trespasser who are filmed and taunted workers and police:

https://www.facebook.com/rosiewillow.gunter/videos/979274242662679

 

[A Challenge]

I find it strange that they were found not guilty, given although they didn't plea guilty it appears they admitted to having caused the obstruction, what they were being charged for, just said there was a good reason to have committed a crime.

I'm not convinced that the signal sent from this is a good one, as with all causes they can be taken over by people who just want to cause problems (I'm not sure these were such people in this occasion), but this seems to be an invitation for those sorts of people to do whatever they want and then they can just say 'but it was a climate/BLM protest' when in court and get off.