Case law says telling jurors their rights is not ‘tampering’ – will Filton judges care?

The Israel lobby, its political allies and its media actors have been pushing a farcical narrative that last week’s acquittal of six anti-genocide activists from the Filton 24 was unsafe. The supposed ‘reason’ for this unsafe verdict was ‘jury-tampering’. The supposed jury-tampering? Placards near the court that reminded jurors of their legal right to ignore the trial’s biased judge and acquit.

Filton acquittal to be challenged?

It’s nonsense, and recent legal precedent shows it’s nonsense. But nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced that it will seek a retrial of the six who dared to defeat its first attempt to criminalise and imprison them for trying to stop Israel’s Gaza genocide.

It’s nonsense because this is not the first time the UK government has tried it – and it was laughed out of court. The dying Sunak government tried to prosecute pensioner Trudi Warner for holding up a placard outside the trial of climate activists. The placard read:

Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.

The government’s barrister Aidan Eardley KC told the judge that the prosecution needed to go ahead “to maintain public confidence” in the independence of the jury system. He added that if Warner wasn’t punished for holding up the sign, actions to remind juries of their rights were “likely to propagate”.

The judge threw the prosecution case out of court, saying it was ridiculous to prosecute someone for reminding someone else of their legal rights. He also pointed out that the same reminder is on a placard on a wall inside the Old Bailey courthouse (emphasis added):

Overall, in my judgment, the claim is based on a mischaracterisation of what Ms Warner did that morning and a failure to recognise that what her placard said outside the court reflects essentially what is regularly read on the Old Bailey plaque by jurors, and what our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape.

Holding up a sign reminding juries of their right to acquit is not just legal. It is a right that “our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape”.

If it’s legal, it can’t be jury-tampering – because jury-tampering is a crime. Case closed, except for the tame corporate media like Murdoch’s Times.

Show trials

But the reason that the Israel lobby in and out of Parliament and the CPS is trying to have it ruled as jury-tampering is that jury-tampering is one of the grounds that allows people to be prosecuted for an alleged offence despite being found not guilty. And the lobby – from Number 10 down – is desperate to get a conviction, both to cement Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’ and to deter future resistance to genocide. Canary CEO Steve Topple did an explainer video on how the double-jeopardy exception works:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Canary (@thecanaryuk)

Based on legal precedent, the government/lobby (same difference) case is bollocks. But will the judge deciding whether to grant a re-trial care?

Featured image via the Canary