> On 15 Sep, 07:47, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On 14 Sep, 23:05, BrianW hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>> On 14 Sep, 07:51, Doug riseup.net> wrote:

>

>>>>> These are all just criminal damage. E.O.S.

>

>>>> You are just saying that because you fear for your car.

>

>>>> Well not according to a growing legal precedent. It seems judges and
>>>> juries are finally revolting against increasingly repressive UK laws
>>>> which makes political dissent illegal.

>

>>> A jury verdict doesn't create a precedent.  Each jury is required to
>>> come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not
>>> bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts,
>>> decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the
>>> legal system works.

>

>> Pot kettle. You are surely not trying to claim that previous cases do
>> not set legal precedences? Where else would they come from then?

>
> Legal precedents in English criminal law come from judges' decisions
> in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Basically, if a defendant
> considers that the judge at his trial summed up the law wrongly in his
> summing up to the jury, he can seek leave to appeal.  Alternatively,
> if the prosecution considers that the summing up was wrong, it can
> appeal (the defendant's acquittal is unaffected, but the law can still
> be clarified).
>
> The Court of Appeal (or House of Lords, if it gets that far) looks at
> what the judge told the jury, and decides whether it reflects what the
> law is (or should be - that is how the common law system advances).
>

>> You
>> are obviously not aware that there are also non-binding precedents.

>
> Er, I am, but a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on
> similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from juries.
>

>> Add that to your abysmal lack of knowledge.

>
> Lack of knowledge being a law degree and 7 years working as a lawyer,
> right?