Last week my post heading was "Perverse Verdicts". This week the High Court came to a conclusion on what might be described as a corollary to that; namely that "Mr Justice Saini refused the Solicitor General’s application for permission to bring proceedings for contempt against Ms Warner. Ms Warner had displayed a placard with the words “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE” to passers-by outside Inner London Crown Court on the morning a trial of a number of defendants associated with the environmental group Insulate Britain was due to begin.
Mr Justice Saini reached the firm conclusion that the Solicitor General’s case did not disclose a reasonable basis for committal, given Ms Warner merely “accurately informed potential prospective jurors about one of their legal powers”.
To re-cap an interesting juxta position of the law; a barrister is forbidden to speak in favour of his client who wishes to put forward a perverse argument as his/her defence but an unrepresented defendant can him/herself argue that self same perverse argument. As I indicated last week this debate has a long way to run. The full transcript of the above case HM SOLICITOR GENERAL Claimant
- and -
TRUDI ANN WARNER Defendant is available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment