(H/T to Tony Greenstein’s blog
Tony Greenstein's Blog: The First Trial of the Filton 24 Draws To A Close with Directions from the Judge that Genocide is no Excuse for Criminal Damage, seen on TLN)
The judge’s directions to the jury can be read [here](https://Count 2: Criminal damage (all defendants)
It mostly seems reasonably logical, as per the law…but not everywhere.
This could be the main Judge Nudge in the directions:
Count 2: Criminal damage (all defendants)
2.1 Are you sure that property in Elbit’s premises was intentionally destroyed or damaged by one or more of the defendants?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Go to question 2.2.
2.2 Are you sure that the defendant either personally destroyed or damaged property, or encouraged or assisted another person to do so, intending that property be destroyed or damaged)?
If no: Verdict on count 2 is “not guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
If yes: Verdict on count 2 is “guilty.” Do not consider count 2 further.
This seems to make the decision simple - did they or did they? If they did, they’re guilty.
But it does not define a test for criminal damage. How very odd.
Here’s the kicker. The judge has been doing his best to prevent the accused from communicating to the jury their arguments why the damage they presumably inflicted on Elbit’s equipment was not criminal.
This naturally would include the purpose to which Elbit’s equipment, including death bombers, would be put. I’ve seen ruling to the effect that the jury don’t need to know any more than they were told already (but not by the defendants).
And in another Judge Nudge, when defence barristers have succeeded in landing a good point or two on this matter, the jury have been told to leave the courtroom, while the accused in a limited window try to explain some of the background to everyone with the exception except those who need to hear it most - those who have the decision.
Which seems outrageous as it’s the jury that have the final decision on guilt or innoncence.
Section 2.1 assumes that if damage was intentionally caused to Elbit’s systems then it was, necessarily, criminal damage.
As this is an interpretation that previous juries have not accepted, it could be a case of misdirection.
It would seem to me that the issue of criminality of the action needs to be weighed against the far more serious level of criminality inherent in the crime of genocide, or even deliberate targeting of civilians by (here heavy) weaponry.
It cannot be right that these issues are not weighed up in the court - no matter how distasteful such a discussion might be to judges, and/or their lords and masters, who at the end of the day, essentially side with ‘Might is right’, so long as it’s our (British) might.
