Forum Topic

Trial by jury acting in accordance with their conscience

Six Palestine Action activists, who in August 2024 had rammed the doors of an Israeli-owned arms company, smashed equipment, fought with security staff and seriously injured a female police officer, were acquitted of aggravated burglary and violent disorder while the jury were unable to agree on verdicts in respect of charges of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm. Much of the mayhem at Elbit Systems factory was filmed and the footage was shown to the jury. Following the verdicts some of the footage, showing protesters smashing equipment and fighting security staff, was shown on the BBC News.Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, described the the verdicts as perverse. Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism said,'This is what Britain has come to. You can ram a factory's doors with a truck. You can smash everything and attack security. You can break a female police officer's back with a sledgehammer when she is on the floor. And you can walk away scot-free if you did it for Palestine'.Some on Putney Forum might explain the verdicts on the basis that the jurors had acted in accordance with their conscience. I don't agree. Acting in accordance with your conscience surely means giving an honest verdict in respect of the facts of the case. It doesn't mean acting in accordance with your political convictions whether on Gaza or any other issue.

Steven Rose ● 1d11 Comments

Zack Polanski welcomed the verdicts, John. I think that tells you all you need to know about the Green Party.

Steven Rose ● 2h

Steven'Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, described the the verdicts as perverse. Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism said,'This is what Britain has come to. You can ram a factory's doors with a truck. You can smash everything and attack security. You can break a female police officer's back with a sledgehammer when she is on the floor. And you can walk away scot-free if you did it for Palestine'.To my mind this is just an example of the split in the country between those who think that any action in the name of 'the Palestinian cause' is justifiable and permissible (members of the 'progressive' and anti-Israel left) and those  that believe such should not override our hard fought for and long standing legal process.One cannot be certain of course, but it might appear that 'Palestinianism' has infected the jury in this case and as this cause grows amongst the young and impressionable such might spread further.All over a fight in which we have no dog !Well summed up by Brenden O'Neill in Spiked UK who also gives a brilliant analysis of the verdicts consequences regarding other issues such as trans-genderism.https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/02/05/the-tyranny-of-palestinianism/"The tyranny of Palestinianism.The clearing of the Palestine Action activists gives a greenlight to Israelophobic mania".'So now we know: you can do pretty much anything you like in the name of Palestine. You can seemingly trespass on other people’s property. You can apparently damage things. You can seemingly carry a sledgehammer around. And a court will let you off. Your devotion to the cult of Palestinianism, your adherence to the bourgeois ideology of Israelophobia, will guard you from the consequences us lesser mortals would likely face if we behaved in a similar way for causes we believe in. There can be no doubt now: the elitist loathing for Israel is the most privileged ideology in 21st-century Britain'.

John Hawkes ● 13h

"It used to be called ' going equipped'."""Going equipped" is a criminal offence under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 in the UK, where a person is found in possession of an article for use in, or in connection with, theft, burglary, or cheating while not at their place of abode. It acts as a preventative measure targeting individuals prepared to commit crimes. Key aspects of this offense include:Requirements: The prosecution must prove the suspect was away from home, had an article with them, and intended to use it for burglary or theft.Items: Tools can include specifically designed, adapted, or ordinary items (e.g., crowbars, gloves, screwdrivers, bolt cutters, lock picks).Intent: The focus is on the intended future use of the item, even if no crime has yet been committed." (AI)"intended to use it for burglary or theft."I don't think that the defendants were intending to take any of the factory's weapons products away.

David Ainsworth ● 14h

It used to be called ' going equipped'.Presumably the guys who bashed in the jewellers windows in Richmond last week just need to say , if caught, they were raising money for Palestine and they'll be let off.

Andy Pike ● 15h

The sledgehammer were presumably intended to be used to damage the weapons manufacturing equipment? In one report I read they weren't expecting security people to be on site, but I'm not sure if that's was accurate. 

Michael Ixer ● 1d

I'd have thought that, if you in any way expected to have to fight with security guards, you would not choose sledgehammers for your weapons. Police use them for breaching operations on doors, etc, but not against people for defence. And, being sexist, I don't think that a team of 2 men and 4 women would be a great idea for attacking the security guards of an arms factory."Rajiv Menon KC, defending, said they had not expected security guards to enter the factory during their action and added the defendants were "completely out of their depth"."Stupidly they did use the sledgehammers as weapons when the guards appeared, and they injured police officers, one badly. Sounds like panic.Anyway it's not over yet. More hearings.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wxlv99xrjo

David Ainsworth ● 1d

Mmm. Of course, no one on this forum sat through the trial, perhaps the prosecution barrister was crap and the defence one very persuasive? The charges where there was no agreement will surely go to a retrial if the DPP thinks there's a strong case? The jury system; well that's democracy ...

Michael Ixer ● 1d

Hello Steven and Michael,Where did you see this news? But, regardless of the source, I find it unbelievable that "the jury did not accept the prosecution case that the defendants entered the Elbit weapons factory with the ijntention of using the items they carried as weapons, or threatened/used unlawful violence against Elbit's security guards."They "fought with security staff and seriously injured a female police officer,.."  "Rather, it appears the jury agreed with the defence argument, that the defendants sole intention was to use the items, including sledgehammers, as tools to disarm Israeli weapons "to prevent violence"".....Bizarre is an understatement of monumental proportions!! 

Ivonne Holliday ● 1d

It is not over yet:-"Current Status of the CaseAcquittals: All six defendants were found not guilty of aggravated burglary. Three were also cleared of violent disorder.The "Hung" Verdicts: The jury was unable to agree on a verdict for:Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) with Intent: Specifically against defendant Samuel Corner, who was accused of striking Police Sergeant Kate Evans in the back with a sledgehammer, causing a fractured spine.Criminal Damage: Charges against all six defendants remained undecided.Violent Disorder: No verdict was reached for three of the defendants (Corner, Head, and Kamio)."

David Ainsworth ● 1d

"Acting in accordance with your conscience surely means giving an honest verdict in respect of the facts of the case."That may seem to be a sensible meaning, but it is not the legal one."Juries have historically used this power, such as in the 1984 acquittal of Clive Ponting, who admitted to breaking the Official Secrets Act but was acquitted by a jury who believed his actions were in the public interest."

David Ainsworth ● 1d

Happy to oblige

Michael Brigo ● 1d