How worried is the Govt.

[hoare_spitall@mastodon.world]

@ChrisMayLA6 Well said Sir!

[tribactam@social.vivaldi.net]

@ChrisMayLA6 What I don't understand in these cases, is how it is legal that this is hidden from the juries.

Lying by omission is still lying.

Is this a consequence of Labour's law-making?

[robertoarchimboldi@kolektiva.social]

@tribactam @ChrisMayLA6 it is, for better or worse, a long standing principle of the criminal justice system here that sentencing is for the judges. The jury is there to decide guilt. They are always barred from knowing the likely tariff. The thought being that they will overstep their function as the tribunal of fact.

The deeper problem is the creation of a permanent state of exception through the various terrorism statutes. To declare something or someone terrorist is to put them outside of the normal protections of the law.

[chrismayla6@zirk.us]

@mukto_manob

Yup, my suspicion too....

[chrismayla6@zirk.us]

@gcvsa

Certainly grounds for appeal, I would have thought, although the MoJ's line will be that conviction & sentence are separate & so nothing relevant to the conviction was withheld - so an appeal would be based on connecting these two aspects (back together)

[chrismayla6@zirk.us]

@benh

see previous answer in this thread

[chrismayla6@zirk.us]

@RobertoArchimboldi @tribactam

Thanks a longer more detailed of my earlier reply in this thread

[bashstkid@mastodon.online]

@gcvsa @ChrisMayLA6 (Any lawyers who wish to comment, please …)
I’d say that normally that would be the case. But Britain has long realised the benefit of breaking the rules by claiming terrorism, and passing cases to a compliant judge. Much the same as the US does all the time under national security provisions.

[gcvsa@mstdn.plus]

@ChrisMayLA6 In the common law tradition, juries have the power to refuse to convict, even if the evidence of guilt is clear.

If information about the actual sentence the defendant is facing was deliberately withheld from the jury, then the jury was never empowered to produce a fair verdict, the trial was unfair, and the sentence should be overturned. Because of the principle of double jeopardy, the defendants should go free.

At least, that is my understanding of Justice.

[gemlog@friendface.kalum.ca]

@ChrisMayLA6 Agree, but rather phrase it that the government's contempt for the rule of law is ever stronger.
Starmer, like his hero Trump, just sweeps such frivolities as Justice to the side. I do what I want. Justice is Just Us. You're saying it wrong.

[shivviness@beige.party]

@ChrisMayLA6

IMO lying by omission is still lying and not materially different to other types of lies.

I hope the public recognise this unfairness and that this ruling takes a sledgehammer to foundations of English "justice", such as it is.

[holdenweb@freeradical.zone]

@ChrisMayLA6 @NormanDunbar This government HAS no respect for the rule of law. The law is just another weapon to bludgeon the poor with.

[rhodium103@mastodon.social]

@ChrisMayLA6
Creating a class of criminal you can just ignore the law and process for is the entire point of the term "terrorist" anyway. Now the managerialists get to follow their dream of using it to get rid of citizens who make things messy and complicated.

[tokensane@mastodon.me.uk]

@http_error_418 @ChrisMayLA6 Because at the time the IRA was an actual threat to life and limb. They had a command structure, financing, a political wing for propaganda, specialist bomb makers, and plenty of experience in staging atrocities with a high body count. Everyone since has been an incompetent wannabe by comparison.

[http_error_418@hachyderm.io]

@tokensane @ChrisMayLA6 my brother was in London on 7/7/2005, you'll need a better argument than that. Try again.

(He's ok but we didn't know for about 4 hours)