Jailed in the UK for....

[exchemist]

This is where I would think the accused's input is utilised? If the protest was about XYZ is the defence counsel not going to be able to make arguments concerning XYZ? Otherwise the action is simply random and meaningless. Presumably the lawyer in the article knows there is a issue here of enforcing a new restriction?

What new restriction would that be?

 

[Secret Chief]

What new restriction would that be?

From the article:

"Sam Grant, advocacy director of Liberty, called on ministers to reverse the restrictions on protest which are contained in recent legislation – in the Policing Act and Public order Act – and commit to protecting the right to protest.

"We all have the right to make our voices heard on issues that matter to us, but this government has continually narrowed our options for standing up for what we believe in. As well as limits on how we can protest, we are also seeing the erosion of available defences for protesters."

 

[exchemist]

From the article:

"Sam Grant, advocacy director of Liberty, called on ministers to reverse the restrictions on protest which are contained in recent legislation – in the Policing Act and Public order Act – and commit to protecting the right to protest.

"We all have the right to make our voices heard on issues that matter to us, but this government has continually narrowed our options for standing up for what we believe in. As well as limits on how we can protest, we are also seeing the erosion of available defences for protesters."

As I read the article, those comments relate to the woman prosecuted for trying to influence the jury by holding up a placard outside the court, not to any restrictions on the defendants in the case.

 

[Secret Chief]

As I read the article, those comments relate to the woman prosecuted for trying to influence the jury by holding up a placard outside the court, not to any restrictions on the defendants in the case.

Ok. My reading is the issues mentioned are referring to both the placard holding AND what can be said in the court. As I posted earlier, I agree with the placards outside courts ruling, but not the restrictions on what can be offered in defence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ok. My reading is the issues mentioned are referring to both the placard holding AND what can be said in the court. As I posted earlier, I agree with the placards outside courts ruling, but not the restrictions on what can be offered in defence.

Offering something in defence is reasonable, but freedom of speech isn't really a thing in a court of law in any absolute sense. Freelancing, tangential defences that are constantly referred back, etc are problematic and ultimately can result in contempt charges.

So...if these people are unable to mount a defence, that's an issue. If they're using the courtroom to constantly bring up climate change as a justification for their actions, that's simply not a coherant legal argument (or, at least, I'd be highly surprised if that was part of a coherent legal argument).

We've had instances of people in Australia very deliberately breaking laws here in very public ways to bring attention to the issues, get themselves in tv, and use legal proceedings as a vehicle to promote additional discussion on climate change. They feel entirely justified in doing this. That is, however, a moral justification. Beyond a certain basic level, that doesn't fly in a court of law. Legal justification is where the argument largely sits.