Lawyers are “scared” of doing their jobs following contempt of court charges made against a top barrister who defended a Palestine Action activist, senior legal figures say.
That doesn’t really work. The right wing aggressors will always see the purpose of law is to punish their enemies (which it is). The idea that it contains a technicality for the sake of fairness that you’re literally not allowed to tell people about so its not entirely one sided is not the same.
With an argument like that, it sounds like you have a lot of contempt for the court system. So if the barrister also argued in open court that “ignoring all law and evidence is the right thing to do”…
That doesn’t really work. The right wing aggressors will always see the purpose of law is to punish their enemies (which it is). The idea that it contains a technicality for the sake of fairness that you’re literally not allowed to tell people about so its not entirely one sided is not the same.
With an argument like that, it sounds like you have a lot of contempt for the court system. So if the barrister also argued in open court that “ignoring all law and evidence is the right thing to do”…
No, you use a dog whistle for that.
Given that even before his closing statement, the judge had already warned him not to encourage jury nullification, he can’t have been that subtle.
Noi meant for the thing you said
If the jury don’t know their options, then what’s the point of them?
What do you think the purpose is of keeping something like that a part of the system?
The whole point of a jury system is that jurors aren’t morons.
So they’re supposed to know but its illegal to tell them?