Jury trial and DEI

Acquittal by a jury can still be two – tier justice.

LAURA PERRINS

What does trial by jury even mean in an age of mass immigration?

A Labour councillor who called for far-right activists’ throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder by a jury over the summer.

Ricky Jones, 58, went on trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he was seen on video making reference to “disgusting Nazi fascists” while addressing a crowd in Walthamstow on 7 August last year.

Mr Jones said his remarks were directed towards far-right activists who he said had left stickers on a train with razor blades hidden behind them, and told police they were never intended to be “taken literally by anyone.”

The Dartford councillor, who has since been suspended by the Labour Party, had denied encouraging violent behaviour.

A video showing Mr Jones addressing crowds in Walthamstow last year went viral on social media after the protest, which had been organised in response to plans for a far-right march outside Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau. He also drew his finger across his throat as he spoke to the crowd.

Mr Jones was arrested the day after making the comments and told the court he felt it was his “duty” to attend counter-protests. Jurors deliberated for just over half an hour before finding him not guilty

Many have compared this case to that of Lucy Connolly who pleaded guilty to and was jailed for inciting racial hatred by Tweet. She was jailed for 31 months and has since been released. She lost an appeal against her sentence.

Now some old wise heads out there have been saying this is not a case a two – tier justice as Jones pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury whereas Connolly pleaded guilty. Melanie Phillips in the Times for instance said “Southport cases aren’t proof of two-tier justice. Politicians trying to make capital out of Ricky Jones and Lucy Connolly should know better.”

If someone was acquitted for calling for the slitting of the throats of Jews, I expect Ms Phillips would be singing a different tune.

I am a lawyer and I do know better. It is naïve to believe that just because someone was acquitted after trial that all is fine and dandy in the English criminal justice system. This fails to take into account what pressures people feel when entering a plea, whether they will be granted bail and who the lawyers are. Some for instance have just one lawyer and others like Kneecap have six. It also ignores who might sit on a jury and what a jury of your peers actually is in an era of mass immigration.

One of the great advances in England was the right to be tried by a jury, a jury of your peers. It was one of the demands made by the Barons from King John and included in the Charter, now Magna Carta in 1215.

Historically, who could serve on a jury was limited. Until very recently you had to be male. It is no coincidence that the fantastic film on jury deliberations is called 12 Angry Men. Not 12 angry people or 12 angry men and women, but 12 angry men. It would have been more accurately called 12 angry white men. In the United States, until recently you not only had to be male to serve on a jury but a white male.

Juries are entitled to acquit no matter what the evidence. This is known as jury equity or jury nullification. It is seen as a limit on state power, the idea being that a jury would acquit a defendant who was being tried on some trumped up charge brought by an overbearing government. Therefore trial by jury has been called ‘the light that shows that freedom live.’ No reasons must be given for such an acquittal in the face of the evidence.

Jury nullification can be used whenever a jury fancies. If the jury is majority non- white and a non-white defendant is on some charge of inciting violence against ‘fascists’ they can acquit. If the charge is destroying a statue of a slave holder and the defendant is bang to rights on the evidence, the jury can acquit.

The likelihood of an acquittal will inform or at least should inform what a defendant’s plea will be. I wouldn’t want to be on a charge with the name Goldstein in a courtroom in East London right now. But I would give serious consideration to pleading not guilty to inciting racism if I was Mohammed someone or other and I was going to a jury trial in London. I’d take my chances on that one, especially if I was granted bail.

(Above. Jesus Christ brought before Pontius Pilate on a trumped up charge of treason. He never got the benefit of a jury of his peers.)

OJ Simpson demonstrates the glove doesn’t fit. The initial jury is selected and is made up of four men and eight women. Eight of the jurors are Black, one is Hispanic, one person is white and two are of mixed race. Simpson is acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in “the trial of the century.” He was later found liable at civil trial.

Later one of the jurors revealed that 90% of them believed the murder suspect was guilty, but they let him off as “payback” for Rodney King’s case.

So no, a not guilty verdict after a trial is not absolute proof against the charge of two- tier justice. Inequalities between defendants can occur before charge, at the time the charge was brought, on the decision as to granting bail, legal representation, entering plea and trial before a jury. Trial by jury should be protected but it is not an absolute protection against two – tier justice.

---

This article (Jury trial and DEI) was created and published by Laura Perrins and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.