4 ms·

An interesting comment by Craig Murray on the related Filton case: This is an extraordinary new legal strategy by which the sentencing for ordinary criminal ch

by jjgreen 1mo ago

An interesting comment by Craig Murray on the related Filton case: This is an extraordinary new legal strategy by which the sentencing for ordinary criminal charges may be radically increased if the judge, and the judge alone, decides there is a terrorist link post verdict. The jury has no say on whether there is a terrorist connection or not, and the judges hide from the jury the possibility of this happening at all. But the public are not stupid and do not live under a rock. The jury sent a note in the second Filton case to the judge Patrick Field asking him whether there would be sentencing under “terrorist connection”. Field replied to the jury that this was “not your concern”. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/08/of-judges-juries-and-fascism/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/08/of-judges-ju...

Maken 1mo ago
Can anyone familiar with British law explain this? Can a judge really change a sentence after the trial? Isn't adding charges and aggravating circumstances the job of the prosecutor, not the judge?
- jjgreen 1mo ago
  The usual rules don't apply when terrorism is called: The UK has free speech, except terrorism, the UK has a jury-based rule of law, except terrorism, ... you get the idea.
jfengel 1mo ago
I thought the entire point of a jury is that they do live under a rock. You seek out people who know nothing about the case, and then (if necessary) sequester them to ensure that they continue to know nothing. As I understand it, lawyers seek to ensure that anybody with any domain knowledge is excluded. The jury is intended to be informed solely by what the lawyers present. I know even less about UK law than I do about American law, so I could easily be wrong here. But from what I have heard, "not your concern" is exactly the design of the system. That system failed in this case, and I imagine they'll be trying to figure out how (and prevent that in the future).
- jjgreen 1mo ago
  Thought experiment: You are a juror in a case where a minor is accused of small-time theft, some cans of Coke. There is video evidence, clearly they stole. In the two cases - the punishment is a small fine - the punishment is the amputation of both hands does your verdict depend on the expected punishment?
  - jfengel 1mo ago
    I'm unclear on why you're asking. You're written the question to presuppose an answer, but I'm not clear on the point you're making. It doesn't seem germane to my comment above.
    - tempfile 1mo ago
      Isn't the reason obvious? You said the jury is supposed to lack domain knowledge. Domain knowledge apparently includes knowing the possible sentence. The given example is a case where knowing the possible sentence would alter the verdict given by any reasonable person. Therefore the jury should have knowledge of the possible sentence. What is unclear about that?
    - jjgreen 1mo ago
      That it is humane and morally correct to not follow the rules of justice in some cases, one of those being excessive punishment. I believe that this was the motivation in the subject trial -- I would have acted in the same way. In the UK this is a "perverse verdict", judges and government don't like them, but there's not much they can do about it except restrict trial by jury (which is exactly what the UK government is planning to do).

by jjgreen 1mo ago

Maken 1mo ago

Can anyone familiar with British law explain this? Can a judge really change a sentence after the trial? Isn't adding charges and aggravating circumstances the job of the prosecutor, not the judge?

jjgreen 1mo ago
The usual rules don't apply when terrorism is called: The UK has free speech, except terrorism, the UK has a jury-based rule of law, except terrorism, ... you get the idea.

jfengel 1mo ago

I thought the entire point of a jury is that they do live under a rock. You seek out people who know nothing about the case, and then (if necessary) sequester them to ensure that they continue to know nothing. As I understand it, lawyers seek to ensure that anybody with any domain knowledge is excluded. The jury is intended to be informed solely by what the lawyers present. I know even less about UK law than I do about American law, so I could easily be wrong here. But from what I have heard, "not your concern" is exactly the design of the system. That system failed in this case, and I imagine they'll be trying to figure out how (and prevent that in the future).

jjgreen 1mo ago
Thought experiment: You are a juror in a case where a minor is accused of small-time theft, some cans of Coke. There is video evidence, clearly they stole. In the two cases - the punishment is a small fine - the punishment is the amputation of both hands does your verdict depend on the expected punishment?
- jfengel 1mo ago
  I'm unclear on why you're asking. You're written the question to presuppose an answer, but I'm not clear on the point you're making. It doesn't seem germane to my comment above.
  - tempfile 1mo ago
    Isn't the reason obvious? You said the jury is supposed to lack domain knowledge. Domain knowledge apparently includes knowing the possible sentence. The given example is a case where knowing the possible sentence would alter the verdict given by any reasonable person. Therefore the jury should have knowledge of the possible sentence. What is unclear about that?
  - jjgreen 1mo ago
    That it is humane and morally correct to not follow the rules of justice in some cases, one of those being excessive punishment. I believe that this was the motivation in the subject trial -- I would have acted in the same way. In the UK this is a "perverse verdict", judges and government don't like them, but there's not much they can do about it except restrict trial by jury (which is exactly what the UK government is planning to do).