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

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...

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".

http://cifwatch.com/2010/07/03/uk-judge-takes-delegitimisation-of-israel...

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?!

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

https://ojc.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/OJC/complaintlink.do;jsessionid=51...

We need more people to fill out this complaint

Jury - see my CIfwatch blog article

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

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.

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.

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

His summing up effectively obligated the jury to acquit them.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

My post above should read:

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

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."

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.

I need contributions to the £430

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

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.

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.