Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.

quote

The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf

On 22/04/2024 13:50, The Todal wrote:
> Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
> they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
> says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
> the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
> contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>
> quote
>
> The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
> group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
> Monday 27 March 2023.
> Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
> words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
> ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>
> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
>

It's obviously reasonable that jurors should use their common sense and
conscience.

What's not at all obvious is why anyone chose to prosecute this lady,
with the result of proving her right? Will this inspire Tommy Robinson
to appeal his contempt sentence?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:

>Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
>they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
>says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
>the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
>contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>
>quote
>
>The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
>group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
>Monday 27 March 2023.
>Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
>judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
>words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
>ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>
>https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf

A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
which is relevant to law in the UK.

Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?

The other question, following significant mention in the judgment of
contempt in other Common Law countries, in particular the United
States of America, is whether these principles might have any bearing
on a high profile criminal case presently taking place in New York?

Nick

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:43:25 +0100, GB wrote...
>
> On 22/04/2024 13:50, The Todal wrote:
> > Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
> > they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
> > says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
> > the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
> > contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
> >
> > quote
> >
> > The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
> > group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
> > Monday 27 March 2023.
> > Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
> > judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
> > words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
> > ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
> >
> > https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
> >
>
>
> It's obviously reasonable that jurors should use their common sense and
> conscience.
>
> What's not at all obvious is why anyone chose to prosecute this lady,
> with the result of proving her right? Will this inspire Tommy Robinson
> to appeal his contempt sentence?

The judgment explicitly contrasts the defendant's actions from those of
Tommy Robinson (Yaxley-Lennon).

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 22/04/2024 13:50, The Todal wrote:
> Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
> they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
> says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
> the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
> contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>
> quote
>
> The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
> group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
> Monday 27 March 2023.
> Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
> words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
> ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>
> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
>

That is good news. Thanks for sharing the judgment.

Common sense has prevailed.

Let's now wait for a backlash from Parliament against these "unelected
judges that are over-riding the will of duly elected representatives of
the people" or some such tosh.

Regards

S.P.

On 2024-04-22, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
>>they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
>>says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
>>the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
>>contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>>
>>quote
>>
>>The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
>>group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
>>Monday 27 March 2023.
>>Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
>>judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
>>words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
>>ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>>
>>https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
>
> A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
> which is relevant to law in the UK.
>
> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?

The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.

On 22 Apr 2024 at 19:54:11 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

> On 2024-04-22, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
>>> they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
>>> says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
>>> the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
>>> contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>>>
>>> quote
>>>
>>> The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
>>> group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
>>> Monday 27 March 2023.
>>> Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
>>> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
>>> words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
>>> ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>>>
>>> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
>>
>> A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
>> which is relevant to law in the UK.
>>
>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>
> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
> regardless.

Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed
to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?

--
Roger Hayter

On 2024-04-22, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2024 at 19:54:11 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-22, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
>>>> they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
>>>> says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
>>>> the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
>>>> contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
>>>>
>>>> quote
>>>>
>>>> The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
>>>> group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
>>>> Monday 27 March 2023.
>>>> Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by
>>>> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
>>>> words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
>>>> ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
>>>
>>> A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
>>> which is relevant to law in the UK.
>>>
>>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>>
>> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
>> regardless.
>
> Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
> supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
> craven puppets?

I think that there was such a time even after Blair.

>>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>>
>> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
>> regardless.
>
> Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed
> to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
>

Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.

Jeff

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:02:48 +0100, Jeff wrote...
>
> >>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
> >>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
> >>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
> >>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
> >>
> >> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
> >> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
> >> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
> >> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
> >> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
> >> regardless.
> >
> > Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed
> > to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
> >
>
> Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
> "give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.

See section III (Jury Equity) in the present case, linked in the OP.
Paragraphs 13-21.

[quote]

13. A major feature of this case is the tension between what is
sometimes called "jury equity" (the power of the jury to give a verdict
according to conscience), and the obligation of a jury to follow a
judge's directions on the law and abide by the juror's oath/affirmation,
which is to "faithfully try the defendant and deliver a true verdict
according to the evidence".

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
>>>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>>>
>>> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
>>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
>>> regardless.
>>
>> Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
>> supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
>> craven puppets?
>
> Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
> "give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.

Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no such
thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.
She didn't tell them they should use it.

On 23/04/2024 09:02, Jeff wrote:
>>>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>>>
>>> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
>>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
>>> regardless.
>>
>> Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
>> supposed
>> to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
>>
>
> Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
> "give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.

Except that the protestors were not inciting anyone to do anything.
They merely held placards reading:

"Juries have a right to give their verdict according to their convictions".

That's just a statement of a fact. If doing so means they have broken
their oath, then some god or other will doubtless send them to hell,
because there's no-one else who can prove it or take any action.

But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
protestors were protesting, that reads, for all to see:

"Near this Site WILLIAM PENN and WILLIAM MEAD were tried in 1670 for
preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street
This tablet Commemorates The courage and endurance of the Jury Thos
Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict
against them, although locked up without food for two nights, and were
fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty

"The case of these Jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and
Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which
established The Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their
Convictions"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Penn_%26_William_Mead_-_plaque_-_01.jpg

Why did the SG have to "seek permission" ?

And how was it in the gift of the court to refuse it ?

Is there any appeal against this decision ?

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>
> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
> central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
> for all to see:

In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.

bb

On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
>> Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
>> protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
>
> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.

So? Are you suggesting that these words are perfectly acceptable at the
Old Bailey yet for some reason are potentially criminal contempt if
displayed at any other court?

On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:

> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
>

Geography not your strong subject?

On 23 Apr 2024 at 19:18:27 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
>> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
>>
>
> Geography not your strong subject?

I expect he's thinking of Stoke Newington.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2024-04-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2024 at 19:18:27 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>> On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
>>> Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
>>> the North.
>>
>> Geography not your strong subject?
>
> I expect he's thinking of Stoke Newington.

The Inner London Crown Court is indeed on a road called "Newington
Causeway", it's just 1.2 miles south of the Old Bailey rather than
"a few miles to the North" of it.

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnv2fqvg.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
> On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
>>> Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
>>> protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
>>
>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
>> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
>
> So?

I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.

Which might otherwise have been recorded for posterity.

Are you suggesting that these words are perfectly acceptable at the
> Old Bailey yet for some reason are potentially criminal contempt if
> displayed at any other court?

Er no. What possible grounds could anyone have for formulating such
a bizarre interpretation of a simple factual correction?

bb

On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
>> central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
>> for all to see:
>
> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.

"At the Old Bailey in London on Monday several people holding placards
gathered outside court in support of Warner. Similar actions took place
in Manchester and Bristol."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/protests-courts-england-activist-charged-jury-rights-sign

On 23 Apr 2024 at 19:28:52 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old
>>> Bailey, that
>>> central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting,
>>> that reads,
>>> for all to see:
>>
>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
>> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
>
> "At the Old Bailey in London on Monday several people holding placards
> gathered outside court in support of Warner. Similar actions took place
> in Manchester and Bristol."
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/protests-courts-england-activist-charged-jury-rights-sign

Surely the Guardian could never be wrong?

--

Roger Hayter

On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
> news:slrnv2fqvg.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
>> On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
>>>> Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
>>>> protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
>>>
>>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
>>> Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
>>> the North.
>>
>> So?
>
> I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.

Apologies, I didn't notice that Norman had specifically claimed
that they were protesting outside the Old Bailey, rather than
merely mentioning the plaque there.

"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8qcv5F83jeU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey,
>>> that
>>> central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that
>>> reads,
>>> for all to see:
>>
>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court
>> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
>
> "At the Old Bailey in London on Monday several people holding placards gathered outside
> court in support of Warner. Similar actions took place in Manchester and Bristol."
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/protests-courts-england-activist-charged-jury-rights-sign

That's a different group of protesters.

They're protesting about the original group of protesters being prosecuted

The latter who actually consisted only of Ms Warner and here friend were the
ones you were originally referring to

> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...

> Except that the protesters were not inciting anyone to do anything. They merely held
> placards reading:
>
> "Juries have a right to give their verdict according to their convictions".
>
> That's just a statement of a fact. If doing so means they have broken their oath, then
> some god or other will doubtless send them to hell, because there's no-one else who can
> prove it or take any action.
>
> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
> central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
> for all to see:

It's the ones who were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court who were being
prosecuted. Not the ones protesting outside the Old Bailey about the ones
protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court being prosecuted.

And in any case the whole point is that its questionable whether Ms Warner and her
friend can be classed as "protesters", in any sense at all. When as you yourself
point out, Ms Warner was simply holding up a placard enunciating what
HH Justice Saini himself described as "a principle of our law"

bb

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnv2g9qb.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
> On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
>> news:slrnv2fqvg.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
>>> On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>>>> "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>>> news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
>>>>> Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
>>>>> protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
>>>>
>>>> In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
>>>> Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
>>>> the North.
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.
>
> Apologies, I didn't notice that Norman had specifically claimed
> that they were protesting outside the Old Bailey, rather than
> merely mentioning the plaque there.

It was a close-run thing, nevertheless.

As it's only the fact that Norman specifically refers to
"a very curious prosecution" that leads one to conclude
that he must originally have been referring to Ms Warner, who
was exhibiting her placard outside of the Inner London Crown
Court.

i.e what was "curious" was the fact the Ms Warner was holding
up a placard outside of the Inner London Crown Court which exactly
mirrored the sentiment of a plaque 1.2 miles to the North in
the Old Bailey.

Not the fact that subsequent protesters in support of Ms Warner
whose case was being decided in the Strand, a mile or so to the West
were holding up similar placards outside of the Old Bailey only yards
away from the original. Indeed such could only be expected, in
pointing up the curious nature of Ms Warner's original
prosecution.

Let's just hope this clears things up.

bb

On 23/04/2024 12:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
>>>>> Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
>>>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
>>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
>>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
>>>>
>>>> The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
>>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
>>>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
>>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
>>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
>>>> regardless.
>>>
>>> Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
>>> supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
>>> craven puppets?
>>
>> Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
>> "give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
>
> Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no such
> thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.
> She didn't tell them they should use it.
>

Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the
evidence I don't see how they have such a right.

Jeff