Palestine Action activist finally found guilty of breaking police officer's spine with a sledgehammer

[noblegiraffe]

Samuel Corner of Palestine Action who was caught on camera bludgeoning a female police officer with a sledgehammer and breaking her spine has finally been found guilty of GBH after the last jury failed to reach a verdict.

He was also found of guilty of criminal damage, as were three others, and one of their lawyers is facing contempt of court proceedings. He seems to have attempted to tell the jury to find the defendants not guilty of crimes they were clearly guilty of, which is possibly why the female police officer didn't get justice first time around.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p99rxr5po

Thank goodness

Very relieved, was worried they had escaped after the first mess

At last.

Thank goodness for that.

The barrister was pointing out that juries have an absolute right to return a verdict of not guilty based on equity and conscience if they believe the law is unjust.or the punishment is excessive. Jury nullification is an accepted principle of common law following Bushel’s Case (1670).

Good news.

Shocking that it took so long for justice.

A law dating back to 1670 has little relevance to today's issue where a young woman's back was deliberately broken. Stuff Samuel Corner's conscience - we could all use that barrister's argument for any crime we dared to commit. Not.

The precedent dating back to 1670 is extremely relevant. Clearly you have no understanding of the legal system. Attacking the policewoman with a sledge hammer was appalling by any standards but it doesn't alter the fact that he was right to raise the issue.

To clarify: in any case where a man bludgeons a woman on camera and breaks her spine, the lawyer should tell the jury that they can find him not guilty if they think the woman deserves it?

To clarify. A barrister is perfectly at liberty to point out the legal principle of jury nullification. Who said anything about her deserving it? The idea is that a jury may consider a guilty verdict unjust or disproportionate. If they hadn't attacked the police they might of had an argument, but considering the injuries inflicted I doubt any jury would be convinced on that point. None of which detracts from the principle.

I am very glad this beast is finally facing the consequences of his actions. I have felt nothing but contempt for our legal system that it took so long.

Thank God.

@Brahumbug "it doesn't alter the fact that he was right to raise the issue."

He raised it as an attempt at defence but that doesn't mean it was "right". Jury nullification is rarely used and only in cases where the jury (and citizens in general) would deem a law totally unjust or inapplicable. A man striking a woman twice with a sledgehammer and breaking her back (and indeed whilst she was acting in the capacity of her job) cannot be deemed just, nor a prison sentence inapplicable.

Yes it does mean it's right, that's how the legal system works. If was on the jury, would I be swayed by this argument? No absolutely not. As I said previously, attacking the police with a Sledge hammer completely undermines that position.

Ah, you say he was right to raise the issue. But then you agree that he was stupid to raise the issue because it obviously wouldn't apply in the case of bludgeoning a woman with a sledgehammer. In this case many would use the word 'inappropriate' instead of 'right'.

I didn't say stupid, please don't put words in my mouth. I said a juror was unlikely to be swayed by it. If they had stuck to destroying equipment to be used in genocidal acts then they might have had the moral high ground. When they attacked the police with sledge hammers they lost any claim to such.

Ok, so you agree that it was a poor argument unlikely to sway the jury and inappropriate to deploy in a situation where a police officer was attacked with a hammer.

But you don't think it was stupid for a lawyer to make a poor and inappropriate argument to a jury who were unlikely to be convinced by it? You don't think making such a crap argument might damage his credibility?

If I was on the jury and a lawyer told me that I could examine my conscience and decide that bludgeoning a defenceless police officer was actually a worthy thing to do and find him not guilty on those grounds, I would immediately think that the lawyer was batshit, probably a misogynist who didn't value women at all, and would be less inclined to believe anything else he said.

If you don't think that's a stupid thing to do, then perhaps you don't expect lawyers to put up a good defence.

whether an argument is “stupid” or “poor” comes down to two separate things. And the law. And whether something is either of those is down to the advice given and argument presented.

Are you a lawyer/barrister?

If lawyers, as opposed to normal human beings, think that an argument that is unconvincing, inappropriate in the circumstances and unlikely to sway the jury but rather make jury think worse of them for trying it is a good argument, or at least not a stupid one, then one wonders why they are paid so much.

Why are you belittling the female police office? You are implying the attack was worse because she is a woman? The police were not defenceless as they have pepper sprays, stun guns etc. You may think the argument is batshit, others may not, that is why we have jury trials. I certainly wouldn't have been swayed by that arguement in the circumstances, but I defend the right of the barrister to make it and the right of the jury to reject it. There has been several attempts to stop jury nullification in recent years which is concerning as it is a rarely used but necessary check on the system.

You are implying the attack was worse because she is a woman?

There are certainly people seeking to minimise that it was an attack by a man with a sledgehammer on a woman who was on the floor. Men attacking women is something that is often defended by misogynists. It’s really not a good look for people who would like to think of themselves as progressive or feminist.

Men are stronger than women.
The man had a sledgehammer which he used to bludgeon the woman.
The woman was on the floor at the time of the attack.

All of these contribute to how the attack should be viewed.

I defend the right of the barrister to make it

There is a difference between ‘the barrister had a right to make it’ and ‘the barrister was right to make it’.