Timeline for What legal basis existed or may have been argued in defence, as to why the "Colston Four" should be acquitted?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2022 at 12:36 | comment | added | user41090 | ... and, as if by magic, said full text appears. | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 22:36 | comment | added | user41090 | We might get a clearer idea which of these 4 or 5 defences was most crucial if we had access to the full text of the judge's summing up. | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 13:01 | comment | added | Stilez | @craw - the Flak ruling was interesting and informative, thank you! | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 10:30 | comment | added | craw | @Stilez I agree, especially given such cases as R v Fiak where the damage was that a wet blanket could not be used as a blanket until it was dried; equally, the statue couldn't be displayed publicly until it was fished out of the water. However, the defence is allowed to make their case. The value here is perhaps more rhetorical. | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 10:27 | comment | added | craw | @Acccumulation The force must be reasonable but that is not the test for the belief. See the appeal in R v Williams. The belief being unreasonable may lead the jury to conclude that it also not honestly held, but that's not inevitable. | |
| Jan 8, 2022 at 4:09 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "the defendants honestly held the belief that it was, and that they were using what they believed to be reasonable force to prevent the crime." Isn't there a requirement that the belief be reasonable? | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 21:17 | comment | added | Stilez | Out of interest, why is it salient in alleged criminal damage, if value may have been increased? The essence of the offence is damage, and damage doesn't stop being damage by a claim that you changed the other party's property into a different form with more value, as a freebie. It's not for anyone else to say, for example, maybe the city didn't want a valuable BLM-modified statue but an original one, even if less valuable, and they lost that. If I tear up your book and put art worth £100 glued to it, surely thats not mitigation - your book is actually damaged, not "improved"? So why salient? | |
| Jan 7, 2022 at 21:11 | vote | accept | Stilez | ||
| Jan 6, 2022 at 23:39 | comment | added | Stilez | I remember that bit about gifted to the people of the city, it makes more sense now. Thank you. | |
| Jan 6, 2022 at 22:30 | history | answered | craw | CC BY-SA 4.0 |