Defendants represented themselves to communicate directly with jurors about their legal right to acquit A jury at Bradford Crown Court has defied a judge’s attempts to rule out any legal argu…
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.
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).
The state didn’t get the result they wanted so they’re just doing it again. That’s cool. Much legitimate, very justice.
mistrials usually lead to a new trial.
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.
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).