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”.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
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?
the British state lost the plot some time ago, where once they were capable of making all of there major decisions in public choosing one thing that is strait forward and implimentable, to the inevitable outcomes that have followed a path useing
"emergency" and "special" powers for illegal purposes in the service of foriegn interests.
It is very heartening to see that the basic British virtues of bieng educated in logic, reason and the ability to describe and discuss the intents and actions of various partys is still present in the general population, but we can take it as a given that the government will try to create a seperate judicial branch for desegnated "terrorists" and there defendors.
Not sure if I can trust this blog, looking at another article linked from that one:
Palestine Action was a legal organisation.
Nearly a year later, the government of Keir Starmer declared it a
terrorist group – the first time in British history that a non-violent
direct action organisation has been proscribed.
AFAIK, they rammed their van through a front shutter, without knowing who might be on the other side; and as police tried to arrest them, one of them hit a female police officer in the back/spine with a sledgehammer.
Cook has long been aligned with those standing against the Western powers. Often for good, but equally as often to spread Russian disinformation and narratives.
Comments
It looks like the original speech to the jury that won this case is published online here: https://greghadfield.medium.com/tony-greenstein-the-most-imp... - definitely worth a read.
He makes a good argument for not guilty.
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-ju...
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
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?
the British state lost the plot some time ago, where once they were capable of making all of there major decisions in public choosing one thing that is strait forward and implimentable, to the inevitable outcomes that have followed a path useing "emergency" and "special" powers for illegal purposes in the service of foriegn interests. It is very heartening to see that the basic British virtues of bieng educated in logic, reason and the ability to describe and discuss the intents and actions of various partys is still present in the general population, but we can take it as a given that the government will try to create a seperate judicial branch for desegnated "terrorists" and there defendors.
Not sure if I can trust this blog, looking at another article linked from that one:
-- https://substack.com/home/post/p-184498793AFAIK, they rammed their van through a front shutter, without knowing who might be on the other side; and as police tried to arrest them, one of them hit a female police officer in the back/spine with a sledgehammer.
Doesn't sound non-violent to me..
Cook has long been aligned with those standing against the Western powers. Often for good, but equally as often to spread Russian disinformation and narratives.
Criticism of Zionism must be extirpated by any means necessary.
Is this the same Jonathan Cook who is ostensibly an agitator spouting Russian talking points?
I suppose we'll be linking to The Duran next.
Yes, he is an evil Eurasian agent. I hear he's a close collaborator with Goldstein. The Party said so, so it must be true
So if i disagree with him on that i must disagree with him on this too? Thats disengenuous
He does seem to have some questionable blog posts like
What does half of an 80's (and onward) English pop band have to do with English justice?
The West is in moral collapse. Stripped of moral authority it lays bare the lie of colonialism and extraction.
I think The West may be like democracy - the worst system apart from all the other ones?