Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Tuesday, 3 February 2026

MORE ON PERVERSITY//MOJ DANSING 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.