Let Noone Be Under Any Doubt
That It is ‘Perverse’ Acquittals Such
as This That Are Responsible for Starmer & Lammy’s Attempts to Abolish
Juries
Press
Conference & Speeches at the Acquittal of Six of the Filton 24 4.2.26.
It says something about the fake
democracy in which we live that the Filton 6, whose trial has just ended, faced
life sentences for trying to prevent genocide, whereas the legal system,
represented by Judge Jeremy Johnson, did its best to convict them. Because in trials today of Palestine
solidarity protesters we face two prosecutors – one in the well of the court
and one on the bench.
It was a long 10 weeks trial at
Woolwich Crown Court for the six defendants. They were charged with aggravated
burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder. Samuel Corner was also charged
with grievous bodily harm.
On the most serious charge, of
aggravated burglary, all 6 defendants were acquitted. Since all of the Filton
24 were charged with this, it logically follows that since the first 6 have
been acquitted that this charge should be dropped against the other 18. It is
after all a ‘joint enterprise’ charge.
Even Lammy, the Injustice
Secretary, should be able to understand that if all 24 enter a factory and 6
are not guilty of burglary that it makes no sense to try the other 18.
On the next most serious charge, violent disorder, which
carries a 5 year sentence, 3 of the defendants, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan
Devlin were acquitted and the jury failed to reach a verdict on
the other 3.
On the question of whether they
were guilty of criminal damage the jury could not agree. They also could not
agree whether or not Samuel Corner was guilty of grievous bodily harm.
One thousand new recruits as Palestine Action ban tabled, with Asa
Winstanley
In other words, after 8 days of
deliberation the jury didn’t return a single guilty verdict. From the
perspective of the Crown Prosecution Service, it throws into doubt their whole
strategy of criminalising Palestine Actionists as terrorists and seeking to
lock them up for years.
Judge Jeremy Johnson did his best
to obtain a conviction. When a juror asked whether they were allowed to acquit
because the defendants genuinely believed that they were destroying weapons to
prevent their use in genocide, Johnson replied ‘no’.
It also explains why, given the
doubts that must have existed as to whether these charges would stick, the CPS,
which is de facto a government
department, sought to deny the defendants bail.
They did this knowing that the
Judiciary, despite its much proclaimed
independence, is in reality about as independent of the government as a
dog on a leash. Judges have historically been in the forefront of government
repression and today they are behaving no differently.
Yvette Cooper and Starmer had, in
complete defiance of legal norms, pronounced that members of Palestine Action
had attacked the police with a sledge hammer as justification for the
proscription of Palestine Action even before this fact was or was not established
in a court of law.
Elbit
security guard attacking Palestine Action defendants with sledgehammer
This was widely publicised by the
prostitute press as fact when it was hotly disputed. As it turned out Samuel
Corner had been blinded by Pava, synthetic
pepper spray and was responding to what were called ‘blood curdling screams’ by Zoe Rogers who had been tasered twice
and then dragged around by a police officer with his foot on her stomach.
The violence of the security thugs
that Elbit employed to defend their factory of death were not been mentioned by
Starmer or Cooper. Nor was the violence against the protesters who had come to
dismantle the quadcopters and other systems that Elbit produces in order that
Israel can murder civilians and children.
When it comes to Andrew-Mountbatten then the Police are remarkably unconcerned about the Royal Rapist
We also know from the Epstein Affair
that Starmer and his friends are remarkably unconcerned about child abuse,
including the mass slaughter of Palestinian children. Israeli religious figures
like Rabbis Mali and Dov Lior have
explicitly endorsed the murder of Palestinian children to prevent a new
generation of resistance fighters being born.
Those who support Israel’s genocide
in Gaza and its mass murder of children cannot expect us to take seriously
their proclamations of horror at Epstein’s friend, Peter Mandelson, being
appointed as Ambassador to the United States. What is remarkable though is the
lengths to which the mass media are determined to sensationalise the Epstein
saga and keep Israel out of it when we know that Epstein was running a honey
trap for Mossad.
There
has also been a concerted attempt in recent years by politicians and judges to
withdraw defences for protesters. In particular key
defences such as "justification" and "lawful excuse".
The most significant shift occurred through Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2023), March 2024 in the wake of the Colston 4 trial in January 2022. The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, made the
reference to the Court of Appeal who gave her what she wanted.
This ruling dramatically curtailed the "belief
in consent" defence. The Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant’s political or philosophical beliefs
(such as opposing the arms trade or genocide) are not "circumstances"
of the damage that can be put to a jury. Juries are supposed to believe that
groups of people, for some unknown reason, have taken such a dislike to a
factory that they get together to smash it up.
This prevents protesters from explaining the reasons
for their actions (e.g., stopping war crimes) as a legal justification for
damaging property. Trial judges now have greater authority to withdraw these
defences from the jury before they even deliberate if the judge decides the
legal threshold for "circumstances" hasn't been met.
Following the "Stansted
15" and subsequent cases, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that
the defence of "necessity" (acting to prevent a greater harm) is
generally unavailable to protesters who choose "maximally disruptive"
tactics.
Attorney General's
Reference No. 1 of 2022 also ruled that the right to protest under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR cannot be
used as a "lawful excuse" for "significant" criminal
damage.
Nonetheless
juries, such as that in the Filton 6 trial have often ignored the rulings of
judges because in their eyes the purpose of a trial is to see that justice is
done. If that means disregarding the bigoted views of reactionary judges then
that is what they are prepared to do.
This
is called a ‘perverse verdict’ or ‘jury equity’. The key case is that of Edward Bushell’s in 1670 when two Quakers, William Mead and
William Penn were charged with preaching to an unlawful assembly. Despite being
instructed by the judge to return a verdict of guilty, the jury refused to do
so, even after having been imprisoned in the Tower for two days without food,
fire, tobacco or water.
Perverse
verdicts occur when a jury acquits a defendant despite believing they broke the
law, often because they find the law unjust, its application unfair, or the
punishment too harsh, effectively "nullifying" or invalidating the
law in that specific case. Examples include that of Clive
Ponting, the Trident Ploughshares and Randle and Potter cases. The same happened in the United States
in cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act and Prohibition laws.
Jurors
have the power to deliver a "not guilty" verdict, which cannot be
overturned, though courts discourage openly encouraging nullification, viewing
it as a controversial feature of common law rooted in the jury's right to
decide a case as they see fit, even if contrary to the evidence.
It
was perhaps best expressed by Thomas Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law
Lord, described by fellow judge Lord Hope as the greatest jurist of his day.
Bingham
addressed the issue of acquittals contrary to the evidence by reference to a
number of high-profile acquittals:
“... the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges. That the last word should rest with the jury remains, as Sir Patrick Devlin, writing in 1956, said (Hamlyn Lectures, pp 160, 162): ‘an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man’s idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement… The executive knows that in dealing with the liberty of the subject it must not do anything which would seriously disturb the conscience of the average Member of Parliament or of the average juryman. I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.’”
There
is therefore a tension between Jury Equity and the instructions that judges
give to juries.
There
is no doubt that Lammy’s attempt to restrict jury trials to offences carrying
over a 3 year prison sentence has nothing to do with delays in the hearings of trials, for
which there is no evidence. His real concern is ‘perverse’ verdicts. Lammy
knows that judges can be relied on to convict in political and direct action cases
when a jury would refuse to do so.
Starmer’s
regime is proving itself in every sense anti-democratic at home and genocidal
abroad. It is riddled with corruption and none is more corrupt than Starmer
himself who came top
of the league when it came to getting ‘freebies’ from rich individuals and
corporations. Fortunately it would appear that the days of Starmer, in the wake
of the Mandelson Affair, are numbered.
Particular
praise should go to Rajiv Menon KC who made a quite remarkable speech, sections of which are in a post by Jonathan Cook.
The
result of the trial is that once again a jury has defied expectations. In the
case of the charges of criminal damage Judge Johnson said that this was :
unlikely to cause you difficulty, given there was no dispute that the defendants who had given evidence at least intentionally damaged property in Elbit’s premises”.
How
wrong this reactionary judge was. When the verdicts were read out it would
appear that the charge of criminal damage caused great difficulty. So much so
that the jury could not agree on a verdict!
However
you will not be surprised to learn that the Board of Deputies found
the verdict ‘troubling’ if not anti-Semitic. It urged the government to
provide clear direction in tackling hate crime and extremist violence. This incident underlines the urgency of the Home Office’s current review into public order and hate crime legislation.
This was because Palestine Action was a group ‘whose activities have included targeting businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester.’ In other words because Elbit is owned by Israelis British Jews are complicit in their genocidal activities.
Victory
for Palestine Action as “Filton 6” acquitted
Supporters respond as first six Filton 24 prisoners walk free
