How The De-Legitimise Israel Campaign Is Becoming Entrenched Into The UK Legal System


By Jon_i_Cohen
July 5, 2010
Share

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/anti-semitic-juries-in-the-uk-may-sta...

This recent case of "Pro-Palestinian Activists" being acquitted of criminal damage they admitted causing to a UK based arms factory has highlighted once again the anti-semitism endemic in UK society.
Surely, this is a matter of criminal damage, regardless of what the factory was or to where the arms were destined.
Is not the judge in this case guilty of misdirecting the jury?
As for the "pronouncements" of Caroline Lucas, this "person" is now a sitting MP, heaven save us from PR or any other change in our voting system that would allow even more "nutters" like her to get elected.
A very worrying situation is developing in the UK.

COMMENTS

mattpryor

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:49

Rate this:

0 points

I agree Jon this is very disturbing.

Presumably this makes it okay for me to go and smash up property belonging to Chinese companies because I don't agree with their treatment of Tibet?

Or how about pharmaceutical companies because I don't agree with animal testing?

The law is the law, and violence should NEVER be condoned in a civilised country, regardless of the cause or whether the judge or jury agrees with the cause. Utterly wrong.

I'm hoping that Ken Clarke will step in... but not holding my breath...


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:55

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks Matt,
The logical outcome of your points would be a descent into anarchy! (Anarchy in the UK!!- perhaps The Sex Pistols got it right!?!)
The Justice Secretary should step in, so should the Judiciary to investigate the Judge and the CPS, if the CPS brought the case in the first place surely they won't be happy with this Judge - we will have to "watch this space".


Yvetta

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:22

Rate this:

0 points

Do you realise that the judge in question, Bathurst norman, had this to say in 2006, when Home Secretary John Reid had the good sense to criticise lenient sentencing:

“The trouble is, if you go on for political reasons undermining the public’s faith in the judiciary, sooner or later you are heading for anarchy and… in due course for the equivalent of a police state.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391620/Judge-warns-police-state-...
.July 5, 2010 at 6:33 am

Who's undermining the law for political reasons now, then?! And why was he brought out of retirement to hear the case?!


mattpryor

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:22

Rate this:

0 points

Was this a magistrate decision or was there actually a jury involved?


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:30

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:34

Rate this:

0 points

Jury - see my CIfwatch blog article

The judge directed the jury to find them not guilty and they duly obliged.


Ben Abuyah

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:05

Rate this:

0 points

In the case of the five main defendants, are you sure the judge directed the jury to find them not guilty? I've not seen that mentioned in any of the coverage. (He did direct that some of their co-defendants be acquitted.)

Not a good idea to libel a judge.


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 14:27

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.bindmans.com/fileadmin/bindmans/user/News_stories_-_PDFs/Publ...

7 defendants
5 acquitted on Wednesday and 2 on Friday

It is not libel to report what was said.


Ben Abuyah

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:29

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks for the link - but nothing in that story which indicates that the judge made any direction to the jury.


Yvetta

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:40

Rate this:

0 points

His summing up effectively obligated the jury to acquit them.


Jessica Elgot

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:52

Rate this:

0 points

Just to make it clear - although the judge did refer to Gaza as being "hell on earth" he didn't, in the legal sense, "direct" the jury to acquit.


Blacklisted Dictator

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:02

Rate this:

0 points

Jessica,
Thank you for clearing this complex matter up

There are a lot of legal amateurs out there. Most Jews consider that "law" is their second profession, even if they have no idea about "torts" or "trusts".

However, it is evident that you don't fall within this category.


Ben Abuyah

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 22:42

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you Jessica - that was precisely the point I was trying to make.

Don't suppose you happen to have access to the full text of his summary? As I pointed out in another thread, that one sentence about Gaza being hell on earth keeps being quoted, but without any context. For all we know, he may have gone on to tell the jury that they should nevertheless ignore that point in making their decision.


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 06:22

Rate this:

0 points

Jessica,

(1) Please supply this blog with the judge's precise words in relation to Gaza.

(2) Presumably a judge never directs a jury to acquit a defendant? In such circumstances, where the Judge believes that the defendant is innocent, the judge would stop the trial. The matter would never be put before the jury to decide.

(3) The judge should have said to the jury "Whether or not, you believe that Gaza is hell on earth, has no bearing on the matter."


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 06:27

Rate this:

0 points

I can get a transcript of the Judge's summing up for £430. I have it on good authority that what we read is only the tip of the iceberg.

Who wants to share the expense - pl message me via JC message board.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 06:29

Rate this:

0 points

My post above should read:

"It seems that the judge effectively directed the jury to find them not guilty and they duly obliged."


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 06:30

Rate this:

0 points

Jessica,

As the Guardian reported, Judge George Bathurst- Norman instructed the jury, “You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time.”

I reiterate what he should have said: "Whether or not, you believe that Gaza is hell on earth, has no bearing on the matter."


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 06:34

Rate this:

0 points

Caroline Glick writes : "In finding as they did, the jurors were acting in accordance with the guidance they received from the presiding judge."

This sounds correct.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 07:46

Rate this:

0 points

I need contributions to the £430


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 07/06/2010 - 08:07

Rate this:

0 points

It is a pity that the judgment is not freely available on the internet. The legal system would become more transparent.


Yoni1

Thu, 11/11/2010 - 07:10

Rate this:

0 points

Well, the judge has now been officially reprimanded for his disgraceful summing-up. Therefore (and for other legal reasons, as it happens), this cannot be used as a precedent. Although nobody cannot guarantee that other judges won't be doing similar things. And, of course, there is not going to be a retrial.

As to the legal 'experts' in their own lunchtime who think that mistakenly stating that the judge directed the jury to acquit is 'libel': don't be so bloody ridiculous.


Yoni1

Thu, 11/11/2010 - 07:15

Rate this:

0 points

Sigh ... I shouldn't be posting before my second coffee (I had an AGM to co-chair last night, followed by a mini-party).
... nobody CAN guarantee ..., of course. Sorry.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS