Tim Worstall

Telegraph Watch.

Don’t understand this about Nick Griffin.

Griffin was acquitted of one count of using words or
behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred and another of using words
or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.

The
eight men and three women jurors failed to reach verdicts in respect of
a further two identical charges against him at the end of a 14-day
trial at Leeds Crown Court.

They had unanimously cleared Collett on two counts of each charge, but were undecided on a further two charges of each offence.

After
the jury was discharged, Rodney Jameson, QC, prosecuting, said: "In
principle we intend to seek a re-trial on outstanding counts."

Why just the outstanding counts? I thought we’d abolished the double jeopardy rule recently. So they can be prosecuted on the same charges over and again until the desired verdict is reached. That is the way the legal system works in our free and pleasant NuLab land, is it not?

Oh, and subs?

Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, and Collett, of Rothley, Leicester, were both granted both granted bail.

Tsk, tsk.

In

6 responses

  1. stewart Avatar
    stewart

    The rule against double jeopardy has only been abolished for certain offences
    See s 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044–k.htm#75
    and Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044-af.htm#sch5pt1

    Reply
  2. JohnM Avatar
    JohnM

    I would assume:
    They were charged with 4 offences. In a jury trial, it is not always the case that a majority decision is sufficient. The judge will usually rule that he requires a majority of say 10 (for arguments sake). The Jury reached verdicts on two. On the other two, they failed to reached the required level of agreement. Since the jury did not reach a verdict, the judge can either dismiss the extra charges or leave them on the books.
    Thus they can be retried for the two offences for which no verdict was reached but not for the two offences for which they were acquitted.
    I am no legal expert, but I have been on jury duty three times and in one of my cases we were required to reach a verdict of 12 for 3 offences. Having failed to do so, the judge sent us out to deliberate again with the proviso that we needed to obtain a majority of 10. We succeeded in 2 out of 3 charges. The judge chose to leave the 3rd charge outstanding.

    Reply
  3. ajay Avatar
    ajay

    So it was completely legal, and it wasn’t another example of the Government destroying our civil liberties, then. Was it?
    Hmm?
    [silence]

    Reply
  4. The Remittance Man Avatar
    The Remittance Man

    ‘ang on!
    If the charge was serious enough for hizonnor to direct that a unanimous verdict was required to convict in the first place, how can he justify changing his mind when the jury can’t make a unanimous decision?
    Isn’t the whole point of trial by jury the fact that the prosecution, backed by the awesome powers of the state, needs to make its case sufficiently well for the jury to be convinced?
    Or am I just a deluded loonie happily drugged by an endless supply of Nurse Cindy’s special smarties and the memory of once seeing her getting out of the shower?
    RM

    Reply
  5. simon Avatar
    simon

    The new trials of Griffin and Collett are for the same reason that the police will ‘investigate’ you if you say something mildly controversial about religion or sexual politics. If the state isn’t too confident of being able to convict you of anything, harrassment will have to do instead.

    Reply
  6. the great redacto Avatar
    the great redacto

    oh dear oh dear

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading