76
Met police arrest pensioner for ‘jury crime’ already ruled not a crime
(www.thecanary.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
76 points (97.5% liked)
United Kingdom
6672 readers
354 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
~~Novara media~~The Canary can't cover this case properly, but it does seem stupid/malicious to arrest her for what she has already done before. Though because it's Novara media I wouldn't be surprised if there's some new fact they haven't mentioned.
But the original case was on a boundary: clearly she and similar protestors wrote their placards with the intention that it would influence jurors to pursue a particular and unlawful course of action. The court found that it did not amount to contempt of court, but it's hardly obvious. I think if those on Warner's side here thought about a hypothetical case where Tommy Robinson (found in contempt before) held up a similar side to encourage jurors to acquit those involved in far-right violent protest, or to convict minorities charged of crimes with weak evidence, you might at least think this kind of activity is dodgy if not illegal.
What precisely is the point of a jury if you’re going to complain about how they vote? Of course jury nullification could be bad. And of course it can be good. All legal systems are made up. The whole idea is to allow people — a jury — the freedom to decide for themselves.
It's not about complaining about how they vote. The jury doesn't have complete freedom because that's the aim; they have complete freedom because there's no other way to do it and still have a the concept of a jury. They are supposed to follow the directions of the judge in terms of how to apply the law. Telling them, "no actually you don't have to do that" is definitely dodgy, no matter the technicalities of how they de facto can choose what to do.
Legally speaking, jury nullification is real. Try to absorb this fact, which should be taught in every school.
More importantly, when corruption is the norm and other democratic avenues have failed, jury nullification isn’t just a legal option, it is the only rational one. Next comes vigilantism.
Nothing I've said implies I don't think it's real, so I don't think we have anything else to talk about.
I don't think The Canary is Novara Media. And in any case, Novara Media seems to have pretty good reporting and discussions.
Thanks.