https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/19/protester-who-held-sign-outside-london-climate-trial-prosecuted

My understanding is that it's related to the fact that only the judge can give directions to the jury.

I guess lying to Jurors about what they can and can't do is, for some inexplicable reason, taken pretty seriously. 

"Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience"

Is it because its not correct, isn't the role of jurors to find on the basis of evidence, facts and the law?

Not a crime bod so asking rather than saying.

Technically, I think T Pot is probably correct. 

However, I suspect Sailo's answer is what prompted the decision.

That is the role of jurors but I don't see what is untrue about the statement? They can find as they wish - that is the point of there being a jury, and there being 12 of them.

Possibly the directions thing, but again would that not be specific to the trial?

but I don't see what is untrue about the statement?

Jurors don't have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience

Not sure a juror should acquit according to their conscience. They should ‘acquit’ if the prosecution has not made its case to the required standard.

That statement is the kind of shyte that would be spouted by FOTL types.  That and Bushel's Case bollocks

There is also a misunderstanding/misapplication of the term Kafkaesque and that is usually a sure sign of never having read - or understood - any Kafka.

this is definitely not Kafkaesque

and I tend to think that this sort of behaviour should be treated as contempt

I am much more concerned about the rulings apparently made restricting the right of the defendant to explain why he or she took the action that is alleged to be a crime

eg the orders that have apparently been made restricting defendants, on pain of contempt, from mentioning why they have been protesting

There's quite a difference between telling the jurors that they are entitled to make findings as to whether or not particular facts are proven as they see fit and without interference but then go on to give a verdict in accordance with their findings and what the protestor was suggesting here which was that they could make findings as to facts which would give rise to a guilty verdict but that they were then entitled to ignore their own findings of facts and acquit based on "conscience".

Of course, if they were smart you wouldn't be able to tell whether they had acquitted based on a finding of fact which precluded a guilty verdict or had made a finding of fact which required a guilty verdict but then just said, "ah fook it, let's let him off".

With Heffers on this.

the orders that have apparently been made restricting defendants, on pain of contempt, from mentioning why they have been protesting
 

wtf

Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, s.26.6

(8) Each of the 12 or more jurors the court selects—

(a)must take an oath or affirm; and

(b)becomes a full jury member until discharged.

(9) The oath or affirmation must be in these terms, or in any corresponding terms that the juror declares to be binding on him or her—

“I swear by Almighty God [or I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.6/made

I am much more concerned about the rulings apparently made restricting the right of the defendant to explain why he or she took the action that is alleged to be a crime

eg the orders that have apparently been made restricting defendants, on pain of contempt, from mentioning why they have been protesting

Because its entirely irrelevant to criminal liability, turns the courtroom into a circus, and is obviously designed to try to influence the jury via improper means.  It may well be relevant to sentencing of course, but that's in front of the judge

I understand that to be the basis on which the judge made his order

I haven't seen the judgment

and I am dubious about whether it is right

Because its entirely irrelevant to criminal liability, turns the courtroom into a circus, and is obviously designed to try to influence the jury via improper means.  

I don't think it is entirely irrelevant at all.  'Jury nullification' has been a positive thing and we shouldn't be actively discouraging it.

If the State is uncomfortable with the idea that juries might not wish to convict climate change protestors, tough shit.

Well let's all kiss goodbye to the rule of law then.

It is indeed contempt of court.

Jurors cannot use their conscience or 'the public interest' to arrive at verdict. They need to be directed by the judge as to the law and how they arrive at their verdict, then HHJ sums up.

The jury NG verdict in R v Ponting was bizarre and clearly the jury made a political decision. 

"Jurors cannot use their conscience or 'the public interest' to arrive at verdict."

Yes they can, and they do, all the time. That's what results in jury nullification. 

Whether they should is another matter. 

On the point around whether they should be allowed to explain why they were protesting it will surely depend on what crime they are being tried for and what defences at law are potentially available to them. 

In principle though trials should not be allowed to be turned into platforms for making political speeches. 

if I were a judge, I would be very, very loathe to stop someone explaining why they did what is said to be a crime

I might well limit the amount of time they had to say it, of course, particularly if irrelevant

What Heff said. 
 

wouldn’t the reason / conscience be mitigation . 

Contempt proceedings thrown out. Judgment convincing to me (albeit contrary to my earlier leaning)

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hm-solicitor-general-v-warner/

This is Matthew Scott’s very good but detailed and lengthy analysis:

https://barristerblogger.com/2024/04/21/i-dont-stand-with-trudi-warner/#more-3562

Put simply, the statement made by the protester was factually wrong and could potentially misdirect the jurors as to their powers, which only the Judge should do. 

Huh, so there is a residual power to acquit on the basis of conscience after all, even if it is only by default (i.e. because no-one can stop them).  Fair play then I suppose, but is it really a right?  Bit doubtful as it goes directly against the Oath 

How would anyone know why a jury decided to acquit? They don’t have to give an explanation. 

Another fine waste of public money by the government. The bit that really amused me was that there is a plaque in the court stating exactly the same thing.

HAHAHAH there was actually a plaque in the Court saying they could do this and the SG still wanted to bring charges! 

@Crypto  You couldn't make it up re the plaque.  No surprise that this attempt at a prosecution was brought by a Brexiteer Tory MP.  Their obsession with the imagined historic liberties of merry England doesn't extend to the actual liberties.

Why were the good law project involved?  I thought they only pursue  bad cases?

heh @ all the petty servants of the Man on this thread like Heff

Rhialto: you fairly obviously to any person with a brain thought wrong 

Don't know about the legals but jurors are a bastion against legal oppression. If the law is an ass then jurors can and should be able to acquit even if the defendant is banged to rights. 

If a law somehow made it onto the statue books that being black is a crime then are we saying jurors should put the arm of the government up their asses and return a conviction? No. 

Jurors regardless of what the law says they would do are unaccountable for their decision and so could return an acquittal if they want.