I’m neither a UK person nor a Palestinian activist, but I found this to be an interesting example of how freedom of speech and jury nullification (or “jury equity,” apparently) work in the UK.
I didn’t realize they had an equivalent in the uk
Jury nullification isn’t a real thing. It’s not a law in any country, it’s a “loophole” that springs out from some simple concepts.
- You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers, jurors are protected from consequences related to their deliberation and decisions.
- If found “not guilty” the state cannot retry you for the same crime.
Both of those things are important to avoid tyranny in the judicial system.
What that means is that if, for any reason, the jury decides to find you “not guilty” even against their “jury instructions” or the law itself, you’re off the hook forever. This concept is called “jury nullification” but it’s not a law or “feature” of the justice system. In fact most of the time it’s been used for very unjust outcomes, for example juries often refused to find people who perpetrated lynchings guilty because a “jury of your peers” in many states was racist AF!
That being said I LOVE to see it used to refuse unjust laws!
Thanks, that makes sense. The internet creates a skewed perspective on shit like this.
In order to be able to appeal directly to the jury, the actionists then represented themselves in court and reminded the jury members of their right to acquit as a matter of conscience, regardless of legal argument.
This led to a hung jury. The state is expected to continue to pursue a conviction, with a retrial likely in February 2026. Palestine Action said this would create “another opportunity to expose who the real criminals are”.
The state didn’t get the result they wanted so they’re just doing it again. That’s cool. Much legitimate, very justice.
To be fair, if someone clearly breaks a law, then they clearly broke the law. A jury isn’t allowed to change what the law is, that would create an undesirable domino effect and undermine the whole point of an elected legislature. Change the case’s matter into any other less morally gray case and the State’s logic makes more sense.
If the jury can’t make one time exceptions to the law then there’s no reason to have a jury. The entire point of a jury is to prevent the government from oppressing the people via the court room.
Right to Acquit is for unjust laws though.
A jury isn’t allowed to change what the law is
Maybe not, but the whole reason jury nullification exists is so that if the jury feels the law is unjust or the reason a person broke the law is so wholly justified they have a way to rule accordingly
It’s an important cornerstone of our legal system. Laws are written by humans and they can be flawed and/or unjust or written for malicious purposes. There should always be a failsafe lever to pull in the legal system and jury nullification is that failsafe
And the only reason he can be retried is that not all jurors agreed. Had they just refused to enforce the law, then they walk free forever (at least from that crime).
mistrials usually lead to a new trial.
Imagine if America had a functional judicial system
