The Home Secretary is not telling the truth about rioters 'paying the price' ...

[jxpop665]

as it will be the choice of a jury whether or not the accused is found guilty. She is being a very dishonest politician pretending it is her choice.

There could be a significant situation as in the statue of Edward Colston case, that if sufficient people in a jury agree with the underlying motivations the jury may use jury equity to find the accused not guilty.

Given the purported motivation of failed immigration policy is a political issue for a significant proportion of the population, this is an unlikely be possible outcome.

YABU = The Home Secretary is right, they will pay the price.
YANBU = The Home Secretary should be honest as that choice is for a jury.

There is a significant deference between a first hearing in a magistrates court, which just needs magistrates or a district judge, prosecuting solicitor and defence solicitor and typically takes a few minutes and a trial in a Crown Court, that would need judge, jury, prosecution and defence barristers and solicitors, witnesses and could last for days or weeks.

Can I suggest to all posters that they take some time to go and sit in a magistrates court for a morning and then a Crown Court for the afternoon to see the differences for themselves.

YABU and pretty ridiculous.

@Bluebellsinthewind

Keir is looking weaker by the day in my opinion

No surprise there. He was a human rights lawyer and widely criticised as being weak/soft on criminals during his tenure as DPP and at the CPS.

I don't agree with the violence at all. The difference only matters to those who don't feel society has got the situation right.

So, you indicate that you could have two on the jury that approve? If this is three in some cases, then not guilty will be the outcome, irrespective of what they really did - exactly the point I'm making.

@taxguru I knew he was a human rights lawyer but didn't know that he was criticised for being weak.

Those poor police officers having to deal with this. Also what's not getting done by the police because they are having to put all full fucus on this.

No he wasn't. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions for the 2011 riots and threw the book at them all and fast and successfully curbed it. He knows how to deal with these utter moronic thugs. amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/03/riot-prosecutions-sentences-keir-starmer

Think the OP might be feeling a bit nervous and engaging in a bit of wishful thinking... regretting something OP?

And most of these will not have juries. But they will get criminal records and fines / custodial sentences and that may lead to them losing their jobs. Fucking idiots.

That’s unfair.

I don’t trust Starmer - his overweening ambition and willingness to compromise any principle in his own interests are well known - but there’s nothing to suggest he’s some hand-wringing legal softy.

That would count as a hung jury and there will be a retrial. In any case having a political motivation is not a legitimate defence for violent malicious rioting, attacking the police, arson and looting etc

I don't think you understand how it works. Firstly, only serious crimes get a jury trial. Most crimes are dealt with in a magistrates court.

Secondly if any of them get as far as a jury trial, they are tried on a specific charge and the jury decide whether have done it on the available evidence. They are advised how to interpret this evidence. They can't just decide not to convict based on their own racist attitudes.

Juries are screened in advance - anyone with a history of far right involvement or anyone who indicates they have prejudged the defendant isn't allowed to participate.

Are you saying that this 8 year wait is the new (less than a month!) government's fault??

🤦‍♀️

Some people think supporting human rights indicates weakness

IMHO, the consequences for these rioters will be exactly what you can expect from a Labour Government. They’re very similar to “liberal” parents who think that everyone is an inherently nice person; “there, there, you naughty person, don’t do that again” but definitely not a tap on the wrist because that would be going to far. This government was never going to end well but even I couldn’t have predicted this mess this soon 😢 and please don’t try to tell me that these riots are not at least causally linked to the change in government.

The riots are linked to 14 years of conservative policy negatively affecting working class areas.

Combined with Elon musk platforming far right activists on X.

That depends on the issue.

Blair was willing to derogate if the ECHR had got in the way of his anti-terrorism policy.

We don't have a 'failed immigration policy'. We have a 'failed to teach some British citizens to not be racist little shits and take out their frustrations on the wrong people because they're too thick to realise it' policy.

Agreed it would, and that there is no such defence - just like in the case of criminal damage.

But irrespective, the prosecution has to convince a jury and the jury does not have to give any reasons - a defence does not need to be chosen, they can just decide for whatever reason to not convict.

In the case of retrial - well, agreed, but could happen again at which point would be typically abandonded.

Its simply not the question of this AIBU though - which is whether the Home Secretary can honestly make such a statement that those involved will pay the price given she nor the government has any role.

These riots are not at all causally linked to the change in government.

They are though, causally linked to the racist shit-stirring of Farage, the Reform Party candidates and Tommy Robinson.

There's no evidence that the judiciary will give more leniant sentences under Labour. In fact, they have explicitly excluded violent crimes from allowed early release because of overcrowding - a policy that the Conservatives introduced years ago without that restriction.

I think you're radically overestimating how many British people are as racist as you are hoping for.

And as others have pointed out, it's unlikely that many will opt for a jury trial as solicitors advise them that pleading not guilty but being found guilty there invariably means a longer sentence than from a magistrates court.

A 73 year old lady, who has never been arrested before in her life, was arrested for rioting, all captured on video and put on tik tok, her crime, walking along the road (not even with rioters but heading that way I assume) and that’s it, she was just waking along the path with a friend and 6 officers conered them and arrested her. She hadn’t done anything and even if you put your judgy pants on, not even come close to looking like a trouble maker woman, she was 73 for crying out loud. The way some of the police have acted (from orders above I imagine) is disgusting.

Sorry, what?

You think everyone who voted Reform supports rioting, looting and attacking the police?

What Cooper said was right, she understands the court system in this country, she knows what can and can't be controlled.

Immigration isn't the reason our public services have been run down, that's a choice people made by voting for a government/governments implimenting austerity economics when the opposite was, and is, needed.

As for paying for immigrants, that's very unlikely.

correct. Immigration is not the problem.

illegal immigration is. It needs to be stopped, not encouraged.

And if you think illegal immigration is not draining resources, how is it being paid for, out of another country’s money?

In that case the judge (although many of these cases will be heard in magistrates courts, or the defendants will plead guilty given the overwhelming weight of video evidence of their actions) might well permit a majority verdict, or the jury will not be able to reach a verdict and so there will be a retrial with a different jury, if it is deemed to be in the public interest - which it likely would be.

I don't know about this lady and if it's clear from video footage that she was not involved she will be fine, but I think you're wrong to think that someone who is 73 is automatically innocent / immune from the consequences of the law. Arseholes age too. What do you think happens to all the young racist bigot thugs? They get older.