79 TOMORROWS TO 7TH MAY

Amidst the hurricane that once again is blowing away this government`s masquerade as a policy driven force for the benefit of the British people, especially working people, the proposal to end jury trials for those defendants who elect trial at crown court has been lost in a fog of government U turns.  Justice  secretary David Lammy has claimed that cutting jury trials could clear the 80,000 backlog within a decade. In practice this would mean that "either way" cases would remain within the magistrates courts.  He has proposed that alongside this change magistrates courts` sentencing powers would be increased to 18 months maximum custodial sentence. 

There is however a large black hole surrounding the above proposed changes; there are no, zero, zilch, statistics of how many crown court trials take place of those defendants who elect to be tried by judge and jury instead of taking their chances at the lower court. As a consequence there are no statistics of how those trials conclude.  Thus the conviction rate is a phantom that would have suited Gilbert and Sullivan or the catacombs of Paris.   All the government can offer as fact is that 68% of either way cases are sent to the crown court by magistrates  but no figure of how many defendants elected that route. It follows that this wholesale contemplated policy change has no factual foundation. 

How can such a fundamental change in the justice system be contemplated with a lack of evidence on the possible consequences?  Since the election of this government on the basis that it was not the Conservative Party there has been no coherence between aspiration and practicality of policy projects. It was only yesterday when Ministers abandoned plans to delay local elections after denying such a change in policy was in their minds just a few days ago.  

A nation`s way of treating those who break the law is a fundamental insight, perhaps the most fundamental insight, into how its government uses the power bestowed on it by the citizenry. Our so called collapsing justice system encapsulates all that is rotten within this former DPP who is forever telling us, that he is father of two teenagers, a toolmaker`s son, first in his family to go to university whose late brother lived in poverty and whose wife works in the NHS.  He supported the antisemite Jeremy Corbyn in the shadow cabinet and blames everyone but himself for the country`s woes.  He is here today but not gone tomorrow but perhaps in 79 tomorrows..............who knows?

STATUS AND SENTENCING

Equality before the law, scales of justice, justice for all and other similar phrases are supposed to consolidate the idea that nobody is above the law; the current investigations into Mandleson and the second son of our late queen appearing to justify that belief.   However as I discovered on becoming a magistrate that concept is daily tested to its limits.

Last week it was published that a specialist cancer doctor, now a convicted sex offender at Chester Magistrates Court, had been given a suspended prison sentence for his offending which later resulted in his being prevented from working for six months.  The underlying question is whether officially or unofficially offenders in magistrates courts whose benefits to society are well above the norm should have their status reflected in reduced sentencing outcomes.

The arguments in favour of such an approach are not inconsiderable the obvious being:-

1. That society suffers from their incapacity or prevention from doing their work.  There can be an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that exceptional professional offenders have more stable lifestyles than many others and are more likely to be deterred in future from a repeat of their offending. To some degree that line of thinking can be explored by careful questioning by the court.  Driving bans are truly an exceptional example where there exists formal application to argue by way of exceptional hardship to avoid such an outcome. 

2. Most highly trained and/or talented offenders have benefitted from massive amounts of public (tax payers) money to have been educated to reach their current position. 

3.  A long unsullied professional history should be a safeguard against repeat offending. 

4. The personal shame of being found guilty for many offenders is punishment in itself and magnified for highly qualified and valued personnel. 

5. Every case is different which allows guidelines to be considered as a guide and not as a strict set of outcomes. 

The arguments against such an approach to personal mitigation are as follows:-

1. Justice is not about giving consideration to the labour market; it is about just outcomes both for the offender and society.  If elite offenders are seen to benefit from their status faith in the precept in the opening words of this post could be eroded. 

2. Public financial investment in an offender should offer no part in sentencing outcomes. 

3. Many ordinary citizens facing sentence have also their personal or religious consciences which could act as a deterrent against repeat offending. 

4.  A century or more ago shame in itself might have been an accurate description of the results of offending within what was a close knit society and where large families might have spread the information leading to ostracism for the offender in his/her every day contacts.  Such circumstances are alien to today`s "screen" socialising. 

5. The law guarantees equality of treatment not equality of lifestyle impact. If impact governs then punishment becomes a function of wealth and status not culpability.

Readers might favour other points of either view. For over 20 years Sentencing Guidelines have become incorporated in ever increasing detail in magistrates and crown courts.  The system of Guidelines in my humble opinion is but a prelude to fully automated AI sentencing where human input will come at the conclusion of the process and not the beginning. How our society deals with that will be a major sign of how this country will be governed until the 22nd century dawns.  

MORE ON PERVERSITY//MOJ DANCING TO THE TREASURY`S TUNE

Within legal circles particularly and amongst others with an interest in how justice actually works in this country the government`s proposals to reduce the eligibility of jury trial for many offenders has become a totem around which they are dancing to preserve their "institution".  A caveat to any discussion on jury trials is that there are no studies on how juries actually perform, how they reach a verdict or where the verdict is not that which the judge in the case would have reached. The ridiculous position is that this government is like a deaf and blind person being told by some means to choose a colour scheme, theme and design for an imaginary new  theatre.  

Whilst perversity is not unknown in the decisions of juries less is known about its propensity in magistrates courts because although often described as a mini jury such courts of three magistrates are designated as judges. It is sensible to define "perverse" verdicts which  refer to jury decisions acquitting defendants despite judge instructions or strict legal interpretations.  In politically charged trials “perversity” is often subjective. In the last five years controversy has centred more on harsh convictions and sentences (e.g., UK climate trials) or politically charged prosecutions that critics say undermine rights. Recent examples of such verdicts are:-

1. Colston Four — Bristol crown court, (2022)

Verdict: Not guilty (public nuisance)

In late 2025 three Just Stop Oil activists participating in the same M25 demonstration that led to convictions in another jurisdiction were acquitted after the judge allowed a “reasonable excuse” defence and climate context evidence.

2. Just Stop Oil — M25 Public Nuisance Acquittals (Guildford crown court, 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty (public nuisance)

In late 2025, three Just Stop Oil activists participating in the same M25 demonstration that led to convictions in another jurisdiction were acquitted after the judge allowed a “reasonable excuse” defence and climate context evidence.

3. Just Stop Oil — Stonehenge Orange Powder Protest (Salisbury crown court, 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty: Just Stop Oil activists who sprayed orange powder at Stonehenge were acquitted of criminal damage / public nuisance in connection with an environmental protest.

Controversial verdicts with particular significance have leeched from the activities of those as above preaching climate change to the ouverte although denied antisemitism  of supporters of a "Palestine from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada". 

1. Sohail Sultan – Arconic Direct Action (Wolverhampton Crown Court,  Oct 2023)

Verdict: Not guilty of criminal damage.

Context: The defendant occupied and dismantled part of an Arconic factory costing an estimated £500k  in solidarity with both Grenfell victims and Palestinians.

Controversy: Despite undisputed actions causing significant property damage a jury acquitted unanimously deliberating on necessity and motivation tied to protecting property/lives abroad. Defenders called it a victory for conscience based protest; critics argue the law was effectively overridden by moral judgment.

2. Elbit Occupation – Leicester Crown Court (May 2024)

Verdict: Not guilty (criminal damage) for two Palestine Action activists.

Context: Four activists occupied an Elbit (drone manufacturer) facility for six days spray painting and damaging parts of the building in protest against the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Controversy: The jury acquitted after about 1 hour 40 minutes, despite evidence of property damage. The defence argued actions were necessary to avoid greater harm. Critics see this as a form of jury nullification privileging protest rationale over legal property rights.

3. Discovery Park Lock-On at Sevenoaks Magistrates Court Kent (Mar 2025)

Verdict: Not guilty and five activists acquitted.

Context: Charged under new locking-on offences after blocking entrances to a weapons factory linked to Israeli arms production.

Controversy: The prosecution offered no evidence leading to acquittal. While legally clear critics interpret the outcome as indicating prosecutorial difficulty in framing direct action under novel public order law amid political tension.

4. Possession With Intent – Wood Green Crown Court (Apr 2024)

Verdict: Not guilty (possession with intent to commit criminal damage).

Context: A Palestine Action member admitted possessing paint-filled eggs intended for protest against Elbit’s former London HQ.

Controversy: The jury acquitted despite the admitted intended use of the items; commentators argue this reflects juror sympathy with protest aims trumping statutory definitions of intent.

The common factor of the above might be that the widespread misinformation of the events that began on 7th October 2023 has forged a bond between "progressive" environmental  agitators and supporters of Hamas terrorism.  In activist cases, “perversity” is less about legal error and more about disjunction between state expectations and verdict outcomes especially when activism intersects with public sympathy or human rights protections. Jurors or magistrates might empathise with the activist cause even while the act technically breaches law. This is especially visible in cases where activists engage in non violent civil disobedience although the term "non violent" is itself open to interpretation. Magistrates courts are a common venue for such verdicts because evidence is often minor or symbolic (road-blocking, locking-on) and legal defences emphasising rights, necessity and proportionality are easier to adjudicate at lower levels.

It can be opined that magistrates courts tend to acquit when disruption is minimal, evidence of intent is ambiguous and political context or a "necessity" defence is considered.  In addition trials are shorter with arguably less formal evidence procedures and more flexible handling of activist defences.

Of course before those cases above and all others are set down for trial they are filtered by police and the CPS.   Since the hate marches in London which began the day after 1,200 Israelis were murdered and 251 hostages taken in October 2023 and more recently when West Midlands Police were found to have lied about the situation prior to an Israeli football club playing in Birmingham there have been whispers that Muslim influence has been politically active within the criminal justice system.  Certainly with some MPs lending themselves to descriptions as eg the MP for Gaza and other highly motivated political figures stopping just short of ouverte antisemitism there is cause for concern that the very term "perversity" in this context is becoming the norm.  If indeed there is substance to that possibility it heralds a fundamental change in our society; a change which perhaps was initiated by the revelations of abuse which lay quietly hidden and conveniently overlooked for over twenty years by those entrusted with the safety of young victims in Rochdale and elsewhere.

Political activism cases are almost certain to increase as faith in our democratic processes decreases.  They are especially prone to divergent outcomes because of rights based defences, eg necessity, public interest and protest legitimacy when  different panels on the same evidence yield different outcomes according to some jury variability studies.

But of course none of the above is of concern to the MOJ.  All that concerns them at Petty France is dancing to the tune of the Treasury.  

ADDENDUM  4th February 2026

If proof were needed of the inroads into the belief that our courts can deliver justice when faced with a jury that holds its belief in a "cause" so outrageous that law can be transgressed, it happened today when smashing the spine of a police officer with a sledge hammer and there is video to prove it, results in an acquittal.