Break a woman’s spine with a sledge hammer on video and….

[noblegiraffe]

Despite you obviously doing it and the video being available for everyone to watch, the jury will be unable to reach a verdict as to whether you did it or not.

Whatever your opinion on Palestine, this should be absolutely shocking. That poor woman was just doing her job.

Honestly, when they talk about getting rid of trial by jury, this sort of thing goes a long way to convincing me that it’ll be no loss.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jury-finds-pro-palestinian-activists-who-stormed-elbit-factory-not-guilty/amp/

It’s disgusting. I’d never want to be tried by a jury. The majority of people are thick for Britain.

Crazy this. That woman must be bewildered.

I was also disgusted by this verdict. The jury should be so ashamed of themselves. I can only suggest that they have been taken in by all the anti Israel furore on MSM and social media while deciding that these activists were not guilty. The proof was right in front of them!

I agree that Jury trials need to go. We can no longer trust our fellow citizens.

I saw that video last night- it was shocking and perfectly clear who was swinging the sledge hammer and how it was used.
The political motives are irrelevant, it was a deliberate attack to cause bodily harm.

There should be a re-trial.

How is this possible! Jury is a stupid system because it is so easy to brainwash public opinion. It’s on film!! They broke her spine with a sledgehammer!!!!

Opinions, feelings, ideology and tribal thinking over truth. As a part of our justice system. Hard not to despair.

Of course there should, it’s disgraceful the “yeah but did they really mean it” argument

How can the jury be unable to reach a verdict when the act in question is on film? I can't understand this at all?

The problem with jury trials, is that the deliberation is all done in secret, and there is nothing in place to ensure their decision is based on what the law says. They can decide that the defendant shouldn't have his life ruined by going to prison, or that the victim deserved it, or any other random reason. As they are not allowed to discuss it outside of the jury room, no one can ever challenge the reasons for the decision. I'm all in favour of a new, more transparent way of doing things.

I"d like to know the make up of the jury and their political views. We won't. But I cant see how this verdict could have happened unless the jury deliberately and cynically decided to let them off despite their guilt.

It sends a bleak message to Jews. If you want to commit a crime which may be against Jews or anyone or any thing with an Israeli connection then all you need to do is say "Palestine" and you get off. A sickening and growing cancer in this country.

I agree with you. It's disgusting.

I also can't see how driving a digger through a wall and smashing up people's property can't be "aggravated burglary".

Peaceful protest? Yes. This? Not on.

She was assaulting another woman at the time who was screaming for help. This led the jury to be unsure whether a defense of self defense should apply.
CCTV footage was deleted by the security company who employed the security guards involved in the incident, which is why the jury were unable to reach a verdict. It remains unclear why they deleted this.

There must be more to this, the jury had access to more information than has been released, so even though it looks clear f4om the information released that isn't the whole story.

They are entitled to ask for a retrial if they disagree with the verdict, so we will have to see if that happens.

Is this true? I thought they were required to decide beyond reasonable whether the person commited the crime they were accused of?

They are only required to decide guilt or innocence not decide what punishment is appropriate.

They can discuss it now the trial is over.

The perpetrator said they were trying to defend their mate.

Can anyone explain what ‘unable to reach a verdict’ means in real terms? Could one juror scupper a vote or would it need to be a real split?

They would say that 🙄

That is what is meant to happen, but you put 12 people, with no legal background in a room, and ask them to decide, knowing that they can never be questioned on what was said. Human nature means that it does not always work as it should.

They were in the process of committing a criminal act. They attacked a woman with a sledge hammer.

From the woman who was on the floor?

what a hero.

You'll get a couple of very outspoken supporters of Palestine dominating the discussion. I bet thats what happened. We need far better vetting.

the Free Palestine activists are absolutely appalling and have got under the skin of society, encouraging and enabling antisemitism. It’s terrifying.

I’m disgusted with this verdict. I saw the video and it’s horrific. Who was in the jury thinking these absolute cunts were innocent?
This has gone way too far now.

If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, a majority verdict can be accepted, i e. the verdict of 10 out of 12.

So for the jury to be unable to reach a verdict, at least 3 would have to disagree with the others.

Where the jury has fewer members because one or more has dropped out due to illness or been dismissed, the numbers for a majority verdict are 11–0, 10–1, 10–0, 9–1 and 9–0, so at least 2 would have to disagree. (The total can never be fewer than 9.)

Usually having only 1 or 2 dissent will result in a majority verdict. Not sure how many more are required to give an unable to reach a verdict decision, possibly up to the judge.