Best Of

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

If the jury knew that the sentence for sheep stealing was hanging, they would likely acquit, even if they thought that the defendant was guilty.

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

Separately, the Post Office Report will be delayed to the autumn at the earliest and maybe later - because of the Maxwellisation process.

Given that the Met has stated that without sufficient money they may not be able to get to the point of sending possible charges to the CPS for a further 5 years, the likelihood of anyone facing any effective accountability for their part in this disgrace is getting lower and lower.

Not only will more sub-postmasters have died but some of the key likely defendants.

This will of course suit the Post Office and government and all the scumbags involved very well indeed.

Endless delay. Everyone dead. Pro forma apology. No more need to compensate. File report and never look at it again. Ignore recommendations.

Then repeat the whole ghastly exercise for the next scandals whose seeds are being sown right now.