tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post7995675157488571529..comments2023-11-19T17:31:49.939+00:00Comments on Bristling Badger: the drax 29 await their verdictUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-69120391397005503982009-07-06T11:36:03.238+01:002009-07-06T11:36:03.238+01:00John, for the reasons the defendants gave in their...John, for the reasons the defendants gave in their closing statemtn, the jury have the right to acquit. The court, in theory, is the people's court. It is the jury who are the highest members, not the judge.<br /><br />They quoted Lord Denning's explanation of the establishing of that right in the Penn and Mead case of 1670, and the conclusion being afirmed by Law Lords in 2005 unequivocally saying "there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty".merrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10959849087751101034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-58537787394300350862009-07-03T15:01:40.112+01:002009-07-03T15:01:40.112+01:00Should the court hold them in contempt, it would s...Should the court hold them in contempt, it would surely be worthy of nothing else.NomadUKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8441439.post-22237745458778494462009-07-03T13:08:21.018+01:002009-07-03T13:08:21.018+01:00Interesting, thanks. Isn't it (legally) contem...Interesting, thanks. Isn't it (legally) contempt of court to draw the jury's attention to the fact that they can acquit the defendant irrespective of the facts of the case? For some reason I thought it was.John Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17024263999778310292noreply@blogger.com