‘March for the Alternative’ - 26th March - London
- Thread starter fractionMan
- Start date
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I was just saying this evening that this could well mean that the remaining f&m cases get dropped too.. the CPS is going to be overloaded right now and no-one is going to give a fuck about anti-cuts protesters when they've got looters to bray about. Hopefully this factor will also help with appeals for those already convicted.
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
Ah yes, that.
fractionMan
Custom Title
gl
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
2nd lot of fortnum and mason accused all found guilty.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I was just about to bump this thread for that.. have you seen what the FM defence campaign have said the judge said?
https://twitter.com/#!/FM145/status/179582322939674624@FM145 twitter feed said:
The charge, aggravated tresspass rests on intention - that's what the whole thing is about.. you tresspass somewhere with the intention of intimidating..
(my emphasis.. the bits in[] brackets were removed from the original law in order to convict Danny Chivers in relation to a power station climate camp action)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68
So how can a judge decide that people had no intention of intimidating but find them guilty..
Mind you, one of the 10 got their case dropped in court because they only had 16 leaflets, not the 20 that the CPS had decided was the threshold for not dropping the charges, so these trials are all wrapped up in madness anyway.
http://fortnum145.org/2012/03/12/wh...-crime-when-you-have-more-than-20-apparently/
Waiting to see if I can get hold of the full judgement on this one. I don't see how it can be upheld on appeal if the judge has actually said they didn't intend to intimidate.
fractionMan
Custom Title
Judge accepts they were "non-threatening and did not intend to intimidate" but "none of these points help".
wtf 
those points don't help because we were going to find you guilty whatever.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2012/03/fortnum-and-mason-trial-b-the-farce-rolls-on/
Good post done yesterday or the day before by Adam Ramsay (one of the trial A defendants).. think he has it absolutely right.. but you'd think they would be a bit more clever about it..
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It is instructive to compare and contrast the fate of the uk uncut people with that of the black bloc
newbie
undisambiguated
link? I don't know where to look for the information to do that.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
No black bloc got arrested (or if they did, no charges stuck).
past caring
The Cathars were right
Twitter is fucking shite, though - I would not rely on something said there as any accurate statement of what the judge said. However, regardless of whether the judge did or did not say that, I am surprised that having looked up the relevant legislation, you then didn't quote it in full;
So entirely possible to be convicted of the offence under heads (b) or (c) whilst at the same time having no intention to intimidate.
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
I suspect the fate of the UK Uncut people isn't going to persuade many to take up Black Bloc type activities instead. Not instantly, at least.
But there is a clear message in there.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yes, but that's not what the charge was.. they charged under (a), it was specific - the CPS fucked up basically, they decided on that then tried to change it on the first day of trial A to charge under (b).. sorry that wasn't clear.
But you are right about twitter.. I haven't seen the full verdict but been told by email from one of the defendants that it was the same as the first trial, which is that there is no evidence of individuals doing any acts which are intimidating but as a group we were and that it was our intention to indimidate the staff and customers in the shop in order to take control of the space.. so individuals done under joint enterprise
past caring
The Cathars were right
They may have been charged under (a), but were they convicted under (a)? A person charged with murder may be found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter - they don't get off the manslaughter because the CPS brought the wrong charge. Nor does it require a new trial for the right charge to be brought.
And in the case of aggravated trespass, the law says that a person is guilty of the offence if any of heads (a) - (c) apply. So if clear evidence (such that it meets the necessary standard of proof) emerges during the course of the trial that head (b) is met, I cannot see that anyone is going to get a not guilty simply because the prosecution brought the case under head (a).
And in the case of aggravated trespass, the law says that a person is guilty of the offence if any of heads (a) - (c) apply. So if clear evidence (such that it meets the necessary standard of proof) emerges during the course of the trial that head (b) is met, I cannot see that anyone is going to get a not guilty simply because the prosecution brought the case under head (a).
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yes, they were convicted under (a), I sat through the first trial and it was very clear that the CPS had mistakenly charged under (a) and wanted to change it to (b), but the judge wouldn't let them, because they'd insisted at a previous case management hearing that they wanted to charge under (a).
I don't see why there would have been any discussion of changing it in court if they could have been charged under (a) and convicted under (b).
I don't see why there would have been any discussion of changing it in court if they could have been charged under (a) and convicted under (b).
past caring
The Cathars were right
Hmmm - I think you may have been misled by the discussion in the first case. Legal types never miss an opportunity to show that they are cleverer than one another - and that includes judges. So the judge would, doubtless, have taken opportunity to express some surprise that the defendants were charged under (a) - and might have taken the opportunity of showing that he was boss by not allowing the CPS to change the charge to (b). The formal reason for the discussion would be so that the court, jury and defendants were clear as to which sort of case the CPS were trying to prove
But it doesn't fucking matter....you're guilty if any of the three heads apply. The CPS doesn't have to get it right as to which one applies, so long as sufficient evidence emerges during the trial that one of them does.
Are you certain that defendants in the latest trial (or even the first) were convicted under (a)?
But it doesn't fucking matter....you're guilty if any of the three heads apply. The CPS doesn't have to get it right as to which one applies, so long as sufficient evidence emerges during the trial that one of them does.
Are you certain that defendants in the latest trial (or even the first) were convicted under (a)?
past caring
The Cathars were right
And do you seriously think that an appeal can be brought on the basis that we are guilty of heads (b) and (c) but we were only charged under (a) so we should get off?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I'm certain that the defendants in the first trial were convicted under (a), I haven't seen the full ruling from the second one, but from what I've been told it's essentially the same ruling (which isn't surprising).
The judges basically said that although the CPS couldn't show any evidence of the individual defendants engaging in any acts which were intimidating (in fact for some of the defendants there was no evidence at all, aside from the arrest proving they were there), but that as a group we had entered the shop in a manner that was intended to be intimidating, and convicted the individuals on that basis.
and I'm not saying we are guilty of b and c, but that's not what the CPS charged and not what the appeal would be based on obviously.. the appeal would be on the grounds that joint enterprise doesn't or shouldn't apply in this case, and/or that the way we entered the shop was not / not intended to be intimidating.
You might be right about the discussion, the solicitors seemed pretty happy that the CPS had gone forward with charging under (a) though, so I took it to mean that it had significance.
The judges basically said that although the CPS couldn't show any evidence of the individual defendants engaging in any acts which were intimidating (in fact for some of the defendants there was no evidence at all, aside from the arrest proving they were there), but that as a group we had entered the shop in a manner that was intended to be intimidating, and convicted the individuals on that basis.
and I'm not saying we are guilty of b and c, but that's not what the CPS charged and not what the appeal would be based on obviously.. the appeal would be on the grounds that joint enterprise doesn't or shouldn't apply in this case, and/or that the way we entered the shop was not / not intended to be intimidating.
You might be right about the discussion, the solicitors seemed pretty happy that the CPS had gone forward with charging under (a) though, so I took it to mean that it had significance.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
That's unique to murder/manslaughter. There are recognised defences to murder which, if successful, constitute manslaughter. So the jury has to be allowed to decide on manslaughter if they reject murder. They can't be prosecuted on both charges because the CPS would have to argue against its own preferred charge of murder in order to prosecute for manslaughter. It is effectively up to the defendant to prove manslaughter in cases where there is no dispute about who is culpable, only why.
past caring
The Cathars were right
See, the problem is that a person is charged with an offence - in this case it is aggravated trespass. A person is guilty of that offence if any of (a), (b) or (c) are true. The crown may say you are guilty of an offence because you did (a), but it is entirely open to the court to find that you didn't do (a) but that you did do (b) or (c) - in which case you don't get 'not guilty' as the verdict. If the judge did say what he is reported to have said, then I'm certain that is what has happened here.
(As an aside and speaking as someone who was outside F and M at the time that people entered and was outside whilst some were on the balcony I cannot see any basis on which it would be possible to argue that (b) and (c) were not true)
(As an aside and speaking as someone who was outside F and M at the time that people entered and was outside whilst some were on the balcony I cannot see any basis on which it would be possible to argue that (b) and (c) were not true)
Similar threads
- Poll
