- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
“They” were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you’re already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you’re going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I’m not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
“A jury of their peers” whats your favorite boot flavor? spiked rubber or natural rubber?
Not sure if you noticed but this is not the US. UK law doesn’t have a felony murder rule, intent to commit one crime (property destruction) doesn’t automatically transfer to another (killing) if violence occurs.
If someone dies during an unlawful act like arson, it’s usually manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957, not murder, unless intent to kill or cause serious harm is proven. If you want to educate yourself on UK law, read up on R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Woollin (1999).
In this scenario, the jury convicted based solely on property damage, with terrorism charges withheld and defences (e.g. legal justification to save lives) barred by the judge.
If protesters set fire to a government building to influence policy and someone dies, they’d likely face manslaughter unless intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is proven. Transferred malice only applies if harm to a different person was unintended but foreseeable.
This is a property destruction was premeditated crime, and apparently while planning this crime they didn’t consider what they’d do when the cops showed up?
Come on, you have to be smarter than this. When you get to the point when you feel the need to put so much effort in defending the actions of a monster that broke a woman’s back with a sledgehammer, how do you convince yourself that you’re still on the side that cares about people’s lives?
To make matters worse this woman has been harassed because she while doing her job she had her back broken. How does this make any sense in terms of basic human decency? Because you see some imagery from a war you’re allowed to do horrible things to other people?
Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can’t have it both ways mate.
EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:
Can’t have it both ways mate.
Things are often withheld from the jury. Do you have no familiarity with the legal system.
Their intent was to influence government through property damage which escalated to violence.
Do you think Israel’s intent of saving lives by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is justified?. These organizations have weapons and kill people. Israel is destroying their weapons. Some people might get hurt or killed while they do this, but by your logic everything is justified if your intent is to destroy weapons to save lives.
If these criminal’s acts are justified because their intent was to “save lives” then the above paragraph is equally valid since it follows the same logic.
You can’t have it both ways. Either both Israel’s and this group’s acts of violence are justified or neither are justified. Which is it?