United Kingdom @feddit.uk GreatAlbatross @feddit.uk 5 mo. ago

Greta Thunberg: Case thrown because of 'no evidence'

www.bbc.co.uk Greta Thunberg: Case thrown because of 'no evidence'

She was arrested at a demonstration in October, with the judge concluding that the law was unclear.

29 comments

Good.

They've been working hard to criminise protests, so this may make them think twice.
- How would this make them think twice? There weren't any consequences for them for unlawful arrest and they still got to inconvenience protesters.
  
  It was going to be the high level conviction that would make the news and be a shot across the bows of anyone else who protested and it failed, miserably. The CPS and everyone else involved are going to have to consider each new case now because the chances of conviction don't look good.
  
  they still got to inconvenience protesters
  
  Most protestors these days are prepared for inconvenience (some go out of their way to courter arrest in order to make a bigger splash), it's a whole different ballgame if you could be looking at a criminal conviction for not doing much at all.
  
  It's the CPS that may think twice about the prospect of prosecution, and the police are going to be pretty loathe to arrest if prosecutions are unsuccessful,
  
  Because the government has to pay her legal fees perhaps.
- Oh, my sweet summer child.
- Did they think twice with Rwanda?
  
  Rwanda is a flagship policy that says more about their intent rather than their ability to make it work. They'll keep flogging that dead horse until they are winkled out of office.
  
  This seems a poor policy that even those tasked with enforcing it didn't want and they can quietly forget about it.
- They'll just start cracking skulls.
  
  To be honest, I'm not sure that the police are actually massive fans of this stupid law.
The crime is inconveniencing rich oil executives, duh.
"It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in," he said.

"There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life."

He said that the protest was "throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent" and criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location of where the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was "made by an abseiling protester".

Really called out the cops on their bullshit there. Polite but direct. I like it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:

Greta Thunberg and four co-defendants have been found not guilty of breaking the law when they refused to follow police instructions to move on during a climate protest.

District Judge John Laws threw out a public order charge due to "no evidence" and added police attempted to impose "unlawful" conditions during a protest.

The court heard that protesters started to gather near the hotel in October last year at around 07:30 and police engaged with them about improving access for members of the public, which the prosecution alleged had been made "impossible".

The judge rejected the submission as "the main entrance was accessible (meaning) that the condition... was unnecessary when the defendants were arrested".

Ms Thunberg appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court after previously denying breaching the Public Order Act 1986.

Ms Thunberg appeared at court along with two Fossil Free London protesters and two Greenpeace activists, who also pleaded not guilty to the same offence.

The original article contains 352 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
There's no fucking way that judge's real name is John Law

You've viewed 29 comments.