On 16 Sep, 08:13, Doug  wrote:
> 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?

Yes, possibly, as I said above.

>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.

What on earth are you talking about?  The problem is that you don't
understand what "precedent" means in the common law context.

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

<snigger>

By wrong attributes, do you mean calling you Mr Bollen, Mr Bollen?