On 12 Sep, 09:37, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> BrianW wrote:
>> On 12 Sep, 09:13, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "BrianW"
hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> On 12 Sep, 08:44, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>> But a judge allowed them to base their 'lawful excuse' defence
>>>>>> around their cause: the fear that the power station could
>>>>>> contribute to climate change...
>
>>>>> I will be very surprised if this does not go to Appeal and even
>>>>> more surprised if the decision is not overturned.
>
>>>> It can't be overturned on appeal.
>
>>> Why not? It would appear to be a point of law as to whether the
>>> defence was properly allowed.
>
>> It is a point of law, and the prosecution can ask the Court of Appeal
>> to clarify the law, but it does not affect the not guilty verdict.
>> Once a defendant has been found "not guilty" by a jury, that is the
>> end of the story for that defendant as concerns that particular
>> alleged crime:
Yes, you are quite right, although the relaxation of the double
jeopardy rule only applies to the following offences in respect of
criminal damage: Arson endangering life, causing explosion likely to
endanger life or property, or Intent or conspiracy to cause explosion
likely to endanger life or property.
