You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
At a climate protest in London she with others was ordered to stop blocking the road under ( I think) a new bit of legislation and refused so was arrested. Thrown out of court as the prosecution did not have enough evidence.
sounds like a good lawyer tho andf the judge sounds pretty scathing. I feel a bit sorry for the cops as it seemed rather embarrassing
A rushed reactive piece of legislation being too unwieldy to actually use? Surely not!
It's almost as if poorly thought out policies based on populist ideologies, are hard to legally implement.
See also Rwanda.
A rushed reactive piece of legislation being too unwieldy to actually use? Surely not!
I don’t recall that ever happening.
Judge Law. Really?
I bet they really dread people mentioning it.
Thrown out of court as the prosecution did not have enough evidence.
sounds like a good lawyer tho andf the judge sounds pretty scathing. I feel a bit sorry for the cops as it seemed rather embarrassing
Don't. The judge explained that the police attempted to pose 'unlawful' conditions on the protestors, so none of them could possibly be guilty of any offence. The police failed in their duty to uphold the (actual) law. The protestors will now of course be examining ways in which to take their own civil action against the prosecution. If the police do their jobs properly, then injustices like this wouldn't happen. This is a very important ruling, as it helps protect our democratic rights. Good on Ms Thunberg and the other protestors.
spitting feathers in the fail comments, it's as if Satan got away scot free. Go Girl go!
I don’t recall that ever happening.
Zombie knives only being zombie knives is they have “Zombie Knife” written on them? 😉
I also noted that the case was so lacking that the judge allowed the defence lawyer to apply to have the state pay both his costs and the defendants travel costs. The case against was so bad that no one in the hotel or going in or out of it came to testify that the protesters had caused a nuisance and the only good evidence to show what was going on came from an abseiling protester. The CPS have totally wasted our money here.
Judge Law.
I am the Dredd!
also noted that the case was so lacking that the judge allowed the defence lawyer to apply to have the state pay both his costs and the defendants travel costs.
anyone who wins a case in E&W can apply for a costs order, so that in itself is not exceptional. What would be unusual would be if it actually covered the true cost - usually even having one a case after a long battle you still end up out of pocket (something the secret barrister calls the Innocence Tax).
The protestors will now of course be examining ways in which to take their own civil action against the prosecution.
I’m not sure that would be particularly helpful to them. They (and their lawyers) would get a bit of cash but they become freedom campaigners rather than environmental protestors. Right now they are peak of the upside on this - attention drawn to the cause; judge says done nothing wrong etc.
If the police do their jobs properly, then injustices like this wouldn’t happen. This is a very important ruling, as it helps protect our democratic rights.
I agree completely but it’s not actually legal precedent, judges make statements like this all the time but the press never report trivial cases - it got reported because Greta was involved, she’s in an incredibly privileged position to be able to protest like this. Getting arrested (and then found not guilty) adds to her public profile, helps galvanise support, and she’ll have all the crowd funding she wants to back her legal case. A school teacher, doctor, solicitor, accountant, police officer, etc risks their entire career and livelihood by going on a protest like this - even if found not guilty it will be a massive upheaval with huge stress about the consequences.
The press weren’t reporting the small number of original postmaster cases where people were acquitted and judges made scathing remarks about the prosecution - they’ve only now got involved because they smell blood and that feeds their sales. Half the press will be on the lefty lawyer bandwagon and the other half will be on the anti police agenda. Nobody is asking why the police actually applied that law the way they did (they have discretion and have previously been known to say they won’t use legislation when they’ve considered it too nebulous) - were they under political pressure? Nobody (in the media) is asking why the CPS didn’t review the file and bin it - I suspect that wasn’t political - it’s just a total lack of resources (which in turn means we cost the tax payer money and clog the courts with stupid cases that were never going to succeed).
A rushed reactive piece of legislation being too unwieldy to actually use? Surely not!
for sados like me it would be interesting to analyse if this was too unwieldy to actually use, or just used really badly? For all the press reporting I haven’t actually seen any intelligent analysis of the legal problem other than “too vague to be enforced”.
Interesting analysis, Poly. Particularly:
It got reported because Greta was involved, she’s in an incredibly privileged position to be able to protest like this. Getting arrested (and then found not guilty) adds to her public profile, helps galvanise support, and she’ll have all the crowd funding she wants to back her legal case. A school teacher, doctor, solicitor, accountant, police officer, etc risks their entire career and livelihood by going on a protest like this – even if found not guilty it will be a massive upheaval with huge stress about the consequences.
I remember during the ExtinctionRebellion fad, where lots of well-meaning white middle class types were asking why more people of colour weren't on such demonstrations. It's because many can't afford the expensive lawyers to get us out of jail. Many would end up stuck with duty solicitors, and have to take their chances with the ever-worsening legal aid route (if that was even open to people, it isn't anywhere near as much as it used to be). But I for one am grateful wealthier people can and do put themsleves on the line, in the name of justice and to highlight vital causes. If anything, it's an obligation, because injustice affects all of us, the whole of society. And it is about the future for our democratic rights and freedoms.
Nobody is asking why the police actually applied that law the way they did (they have discretion and have previously been known to say they won’t use legislation when they’ve considered it too nebulous) – were they under political pressure?
The police have always been used as political pawns and tools; the Miners' Strikes and the Wapping Dispute of the 80s' showed just how much a government could use the police to enforce political will and protect corporate interests over those of greater society. It disturbs me to see just how insidious this use of the police still is; the police have a duty to society, not governments. It's senior police officers who need to be held to account for this corruption. They are meant to be politically neutral, not part of an authoritarian fascistic regime. So it's good to see them beaten on this one, andI do hope they are further held to account over this. It's beyond money. I'd be happy to fund any case against the police/CPs on this one, and many other similar cases. But I'd really, really like that method of funding to be the Legal Aid system. That was an important part of the mechanism of Justice, and it's being taken away from us.