This quote really says it all.
“It is starting to feel like it’s about the politics of the subject matter of the trial, rather than the core principles of how a barrister represents his client.”
As an aside, this is an amazing title.
Former shadow attorney general Baroness Shami Chakrabarti also expressed her concern about Menon’s prosecution…
“Shadow” means you had the role for the opposition.
So she was the Attorney General for the opposition party, rather than the incumbent.
Former means she is now no longer an attorney general of any sort.
Yes, it is a great title and apologies if explaining it lessens the magic.
It absolutely doesn’t lessen it! Thanks for explaining!
That’s the point, isn’t it?
Juries can practice jury nullification if they want and nobody can stop them, but barristers aren’t supposed to suggest it. Imagine if, say, a prosecutor told an Israeli jury that they didn’t technically need evidence to arrive at a “guilty” verdict for a Palestinian defendant, just “their conscience”. Jury nullification can’t become just another trial strategy, or the whole legal system becomes worthless.
This is so wildly general, I can’t comment in good faith. As it stands, the whole legal system does seem to be worthless, unless one has plenty of money for legal fees and social status, and even then, as long as they are arguing the “preferred” view.
I don’t disagree; I’m just pointing out that the judge was unlikely to be targeting the barrister for any political reason. Courts always discourage any overly obvious suggestion of jury nullification, regardless of the case being tried or whether it does or does not relate to Israel.
Fair.
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.
The status chasing and money chasing establishment esquires are afraid, the freedom fighters with a law degree say “Bring that shit on you motherfuckers!”.
As much as I wish that were true, it isn’t. People have families and lawyers, prosecution and defense, often make enemies with potential safety consequences, plus the financial considerations you mentioned, which include legal fees, student loans, , mortgages, children to keep fed, clothed, and in school. People with regular jobs don’t want to take a weekday off work for peaceful protest in designated “free speech zones” and the like (dependent on country, obviously), for fear they’ll lose their jobs, face arrest and legal fees, lose their homes, much less anything like France’s Yellow Vest protests or Germany’s anti-nuclear waste on rails protests. But even with those instances, things I mentioned are still real risks. Britain was arresting elderly people and the United States has a long history of arresting clergy.
Really they all need to down tools until its reversed and the barrister compensated. Every one of them is risking criminal charges for doing their job, that is unacceptable.
Granted. Council, he is fined fifty pounds for turning up.
