UK Politics

3023 readers

119 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)

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.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

166

Jury defies judge and refuses to convict Palestine Action activists (skwawkbox.org)

submitted 4 days ago by grue@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 53 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

mistrials usually lead to a new trial.

[+] bassomitron@lemmy.world -18 points 4 days ago (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

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).

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] femtech@midwest.social 17 points 3 days ago

Right to Acquit is for unjust laws though.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] holycrap@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I didn't realize they had an equivalent in the uk

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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!

[–] holycrap@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Thanks, that makes sense. The internet creates a skewed perspective on shit like this.