You can read the full judgment in #TrudiWarner’s important victory over the Solicitor General here. It confirms the principle of #juryequity and acknowledges that the difference between it being a “right” and a “power”, as put forward by the SG, is essentially a non-argument. #Righttoprotest #ClimateCrisis #TrialByJury
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/hm-solicitor-general-v-warner/
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 918 (KB)Case Number: KB-2023-004710 In the High Court of JusticeKing’s Bench DivisionRoyal Courts of Justice 22 April 2024 Before:The Honourable Mr Justice Saini Between:Hm Solicitor General-v-Trudi Ann Warner
@Sonikku @RichardAshwell @cstross
It's called "jury equity" in 21st century U.K. law.
Robin Auld (LJ) named the concept a "perverse verdict" when he did a law review in 1999, but a lot of modern commentators assert that that is a bad name, the idea that it is somehow "perverse" for a jury to disagree arrogating the jury's powers to the judge and prosecutor.
I've checked with someone I know, and we both think that the case would hit the Supreme Court and bounce like a rubber ball, as long as the (supposedly not in dispute) facts of the case are as stated, and that she didn't do anything in addition to repeating what the plaque said.
Referring to a famous 17th century case where contempt of court was quashed, and getting charged with contempt of court for *that*, is appalling.
Dr Susi Arnott
Nick
JdeBP