Black Lives Matter: the Tory Government of Johnson and Braverman changed the law when a jury did not deliver their required verdict and instead acquitted the Colston 4 in 2022
Croydon residents outside the Crown Court in the town centre joined a nationwide protest this morning, part of a growing campaign called “Defend Our Juries”.
The protest outside Croydon Crown Court was one of 50 around the country, where all the protestors faced a real risk of arrest for nothing more than holding up placards and slogans seeking to maintain the centuries-old principle of jury equity and to defend democracy.
Peaceful protest: one of the Croydon protestors delivering a letter of complaint to the courts. Such benign action has led to arrests in recent cases
“As juries keep acquitting those exposing government lies over climate, fuel poverty and arms supplies, events have taken a sinister turn,” the Defend Our Juries campaigners tweeted this morning.
“The State has begun arresting and prosecuting people just for communicating the principle of jury equity.
“The Solicitor General is applying for the committal to prison of Trudi Warner, a 68-year-old retired social worker, for holding [a] sign on a card.” Warner has been accused of contempt of court.
“In October, [the Metropolitan Police] arrested… Indigo Rumbelow during a dawn raid, alleging her sign was ‘perverting the course of justice’.
“Then in November, they arrested Laura Kaarina Korte on the same basis, and kept her in custody for 24 hours.”
Defend Our Juries link this police-state action against the rights of jurors and protestors to the multibillion corporate interests of some of those in power, including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The signs outside Croydon Crown Court today displayed the principle of “jury equity” – the right of all jurors in British courts to acquit a defendant according to their conscience and irrespective of the directions of the judge.
In 1984, a jury acquitted the civil servant, Clive Ponting, on this principle after he exposed government misinformation to the public and Parliament over the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser, the Belgrano, one of the biggest controversies of Thatcher’s Falklands War.
“There are strong indications that united, collective action to defend the principle of jury equity is proving effective,” a spokesperson for XR Croydon said.
Point of principle: three protestors make their point outside Croydon Crown Court this morning
“Just days after the Solicitor General’s announcement to prosecute Warner, 252 people gathered outside 25 crown courts across England and Wales, holding similar signs in solidarity. None were arrested and there has been no indication of a police investigation since then.
“An investigation into people previously arrested for displaying posters with the same message has now been discontinued.”
The Defend Our Juries campaign has gathered support from eminent professors of law such as Professor Richard Vogler and Professor John Spencer.
Vogler said: “George Orwell noticed the tendency of repressive law to degenerate into farce when truth becomes a lie and commonsense is heresy.
“This is worth remembering now that the Solicitor General, Michael Tomlinson KC, has concluded that it is right to take action against… Trudi Warner, for holding up a sign outside a criminal court, simply proclaiming one of the fundamental principles of the common law: the right of a jury to decide a case according to its conscience.”
The protest groups claim that some cases have been politicised by the Tory Government, with “show trials”… “after a succession of jury acquittals, including the acquittal of the Colston 4 in January 2022, have embarrassed the Government and certain corporate interests”.
The Defend Our Juries campaigners say: “In the Colston case, Suella Braverman, who was Attorney General at the time, decided that the jury of Bristol people had got it wrong, and brought a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal, changing the law.”
Measures being taken by courts in response to legitimate civil protests include defendants being banned from explaining to the jury why they did what they did. Some who have taken peaceful direct action are now being sent to prison for up to three years.
XR Croydon’s spokesperson said: “In some cases, people have been sent to prison just for trying to explain their actions to the jury for saying the words ‘climate change’ and ‘fuel poverty’ in court.
“Defendants are banned from explaining the principle of ‘jury equity’ to the jury, even though it is a well-established principle of law, which is set in marble at the original entrance to the Old Bailey.
One of today’s Croydon protestors, a mum of two children aged under eight, said, “I will myself soon be in front of a jury and it is my absolute right to tell them why I decided to take non-violent direct action.
“The right to a fair trial is fundamental to any civilised society: defendants have the right to say who they are, what they did and why they did it. A jury has a right to hear the whole truth and any judge who attempts to curtail those rights is abusing their power and must be resisted.”
Another of the Croydon protestors, a 74-year-old member of Christian Climate Action, said: “The right of juries to acquit a defendant according to their conscience has been enshrined in British Law for centuries.
“We must protect this right. Judges have a duty to let our juries hear the whole truth and let them reach a fair and true verdict without judicial interference.”
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
- Inside Croydon – as seen on TV! – has been delivering local community news since 2010. 3million page views per year in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
- If you want real journalism, actually based in the borough, you should consider paying for it. Please sign up today. Click here for more details
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SIXTH successive year in 2022 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
I presume by this logic anyone destroying a ULEZ camera should have a fair chance of a jury , from his locality, acquitting him?
Wouldn’t bank on that, Peter. Juries are supposed to be composed of fair-minded people.
This concept of jury equity seems to contradict what the jury is there for. They should be deciding, on the evidence, whether the alleged criminal act was carried out by the defendants i.e. that what the defendants did was against the law. If a juror agrees that the crime was committed but the juror’s conscience feels that the crime was justified then a potential miscarriage of justice could occur. Presumably all jurors would have to have their consciences examined prior to deciding a case. Would it be possible to permit jurors add a rider to their decision covering their belief that the crime was justified.
Jury equity refers to the capacity of a jury to return a verdict according to conscience. This is only possible because a jury does not have to give reasons for its verdicts and because a judge cannot direct a jury to convict.
Possible reasons for acquittals might be that a jury considers the law unfair or the decision to bring a prosecution unjust. It allows for ordinary citizens to resist imposing unfair laws, or laws unfairly.
Greater thinkers such as Aristotle and EP Thompson have spoken in favour of the concept, with the latter saying, “The jury attends in judgment not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and humanity of the law.”
Bit too “woke” for you, Del?
The principle of jury equity seems a good one…If the population from which the jury is selected are short-termist or overly self-serving in their outlook, then that is a fault of society, and maybe needs to be remedied through education & better quality public discourse…the sticking plaster of Secretaries of State or judges dictating case outcomes doesn’t seem a wise policy that will create trust in our public institutions!
A jury cannot, and will never be asked to, explain its reasoning. Exactly how any particular decision is reached will always be a mystery to anyone outside the room. In practice, this means the judge’s directions may get disregarded or decisions could be made based on all manner of prejudice, bias, speculation or other such irrelevant considerations. As a result, there are those who believe a jury should be forced to give reasons or even be abolished entirely.
There are solid reasons for Jury laws and rules. As we know sometimes (more times recently) we elect wrong ‘uns to parliament who attempt to pervert laws to meet political goals ignoring those that are the electorate.
The CPS can decided what to bring to court in the public interest and what not. But a Juror can decide on the matter that the person was not guilty. One can infer what they like from that but the Jury cannot be penalised for it in any way.
They are a real safeguard for those ”whistleblowing about wrongdoing and in the Public interest.
One just has to consider that if the ”Act” by those in in Authority was right it would stand tall in the light. If not then it should have been resolved internally first. That neither took place and someone who blew the whistle and ends up in court for doing so says someone is misusing laws for ulterior motives.
I would hope that they can state their reasons in court and let the jury decide the right or wrongs of that act according to their conscience and belief.
Anyone and everyone can be in that situation through no fault of their own. Consider how you would feel if you were wrongfully taken to court and were silenced from speaking. Then consider yourself as a Juror just hearing one side of the evidence.
Then consider are you still living within the United Kingdom you grew up in?