On 15 Sep, 09:03, BrianW  wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 07:47, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:05, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Sep, 07:51, Doug  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?

Well you should be up to tackling this one then. Suppose E-ON takes
the case to appeal and loses, will that then set a precedent? Or, if
there is no case at all how can there then be an appeal or a
precedent? There has to be a case in the first place for a precedent
to exist, as I claimed, semanticist.

BTW, congrats on avoiding personal abuse and wrong attributes in your
post this time around. You seem to be learning at last.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.