How can a judge order you not to say why you committed an offence?

[stevensfo]

Not sure if this should be on Legal issues, but it's just an academic question, so maybe better here.

An environmental activist has been jailed for eight weeks after disobeying a judge’s instruction not to mention the climate crisis as his motivation during his trial for taking part in a road-blocking protest.

David Nixon, 36, a care worker from Barnsley, was sentenced at Inner London crown court on Tuesday after admitting contempt of court the day before by using his closing address to begin telling a jury about his reasons for protesting.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/insulate-brit ... 35867.html

Whether or not you sympathise with this guy, I simply cannot understand why or how a judge can order someone not to mention the reason why he did what he did. Yes, I realise that the reasons may make the jury more sympathetic, but isn't that what a jury is for?

e.g. If I seriously injure someone in stopping him from attacking a child, can the judge then order me not to mention the reason why I caused the injuries?

What am I missing?

Steve

[Lootman]

I think the key point here is that the defendant was representing himself. Normally a lawyer would be doing the summing up, and before the trial starts the judge would agree with both sets of lawyers what is admissable and what is not admissible. A lawyer who then disobeyed that instruction would be in a lot of trouble with the judge, and possibly with the professional body as well.

I suspect that the judge gave that prohibition to prevent the trial turning into a media or ideological circus, and wanted the focus to be on the law and on what happened, and not on speechifying and grandstanding.

[GoSeigen]

Maybe wanted to make a way for the verdict to be overturned at appeal?

GS

[stevensfo]

I think the key point here is that the defendant was representing himself. Normally a lawyer would be doing the summing up, and before the trial starts the judge would agree with both sets of lawyers what is admissable and what is not admissible. A lawyer who then disobeyed that instruction would be in a lot of trouble with the judge, and possibly with the professional body as well.

I suspect that the judge gave that prohibition to prevent the trial turning into a media or ideological circus, and wanted the focus to be on the law and on what happened, and not on speechifying and grandstanding.

Good point. I can well imagine it turning into a circus. Also I imagine that the jury must have known why the guy did it, so there was no need for him to start preaching at that point.

I wonder if the eight weeks will be included in whatever sentence he gets.

Seeing that he will be unable to go shopping, drive or turn up the central heating, his time in prison is surely helping the environment?

Steve

[didds]

Also I imagine that the jury must have known why the guy did it, so there was no need for him to start preaching at that point.

but isn't it a salient and crucial concept that juries can only consider evidence placed before them. If nobody has said in court "It happened because of X" then the jury cannot consider "reason X" ?

AIUI?

didds

[Lootman]

Also I imagine that the jury must have known why the guy did it, so there was no need for him to start preaching at that point.

but isn't it a salient and crucial concept that juries can only consider evidence placed before them. If nobody has said in court "It happened because of X" then the jury cannot consider "reason X" ?

AIUI?

Yes, which is why during jury selection each juror is asked if you have read or heard anything about the case, whether any party to the case is personally known to you, whether any member of your family has had similar experiences, and so on. I suspect a juror would be rejected if they held strong political opinions on the topic as well.

How good jurors are at ignoring things that they happen to independently know varies, I'd imagine. Like when something gets blurted out in court and the judge instructs the jury to ignore it.

[Spet0789]

Also I imagine that the jury must have known why the guy did it, so there was no need for him to start preaching at that point.

but isn't it a salient and crucial concept that juries can only consider evidence placed before them. If nobody has said in court "It happened because of X" then the jury cannot consider "reason X" ?

AIUI?

didds

Precisely this. If the protester had called himself as a witness and had a lawyer ask him why he did it, it would have been evidence. But as he was acting as a lawyer and not as a witness, he can’t try to introduce evidence under the guise of a legal argument.

A poorly executed attempt at jury nullification.

[Lootman]

If the protester had called himself as a witness and had a lawyer ask him why he did it, it would have been evidence.

Not necessarily, as the Judge could have instructed that defence lawyer to not ask such a question, nor otherwise solicit such a response.

Clearly the Judge wished to pre-empt any emotional reach for jury nullification.

[UncleEbenezer]

Whether or not you sympathise with this guy, I simply cannot understand why or how a judge can order someone not to mention the reason why he did what he did. Yes, I realise that the reasons may make the jury more sympathetic, but isn't that what a jury is for?

I would be inclined to agree with that. But Juries can be prevented by Courts from seeking to inform themselves, even to the extent of imprisoning jurors. Their role is as audience to whatever performance - whether truth, lies, or something more nuanced - put on by the professional Liars. This must be a facet of that censorship.

e.g. If I seriously injure someone in stopping him from attacking a child, can the judge then order me not to mention the reason why I caused the injuries?

Who knows? Your best chance of protection in such a case might be the press. Which would of course be to subvert the system.

What am I missing?

You may be under the misapprehension that you could advance in the legal profession to the level of a judge without abandoning any naïve notions of our "justice" system as something that convicts the guilty and is no threat to the innocent.

[Lootman]

Whether or not you sympathise with this guy, I simply cannot understand why or how a judge can order someone not to mention the reason why he did what he did. Yes, I realise that the reasons may make the jury more sympathetic, but isn't that what a jury is for?

I would be inclined to agree with that. But Juries can be prevented by Courts from seeking to inform themselves, even to the extent of imprisoning jurors. Their role is as audience to whatever performance - whether truth, lies, or something more nuanced - put on by the professional Liars. This must be a facet of that censorship.

So a judge ruling on a matter of law in a court case is engaged in "censorship"?

You and I inhabit different planets.

[CliffEdge]

Eight weeks, should be eight months, hard labour

[stevensfo]

Eight weeks, should be eight months, hard labour

Eight months with Jeremy Corbyn? Isn't that inhumane treatment, banned under the Geneva convention?

Steve

[mutantpoodle]

Eight weeks, should be eight months, hard labour

he will be out a long time before the 8 weeks passes
he is a 'hardworking' care worker......

.....time off too protest?
or taking holiday leave
or called in sick (due to 'stress')

[didds]

he will be out a long time before the 8 weeks passes
he is a 'hardworking' care worker......

.....time off too protest?
or taking holiday leave
or called in sick (due to 'stress')

well he's up for exit after 50% of tarriff. As is everybody under whatever jail sentence time, if they keep their nose clean. AIUI. It will be nothing to do with his job.

AIUI. Happy to be shown wrong .

(I refer to "The Secret barrister" books as my source )

[scrumpyjack]

Surely the point of the trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence he/she/it is charged with. Motivation does not affect guilt or innocence and so is irrelevant in determining guilt/innocence but is relevant in sentencing.

[UncleEbenezer]

Surely the point of the trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence he/she/it is charged with.

May I refer you to my post above? Particularly the last sentence!

[didds]

Surely the point of the trial is to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty of the offence he/she/it is charged with. Motivation does not affect guilt or innocence and so is irrelevant in determining guilt/innocence but is relevant in sentencing.

isnt the dist8inction between murder and manslaughter arguably "motivation" ?

[BobbyD]

Also I imagine that the jury must have known why the guy did it, so there was no need for him to start preaching at that point.

but isn't it a salient and crucial concept that juries can only consider evidence placed before them. If nobody has said in court "It happened because of X" then the jury cannot consider "reason X" ?

AIUI?

didds

Precisely this. If the protester had called himself as a witness and had a lawyer ask him why he did it, it would have been evidence. But as he was acting as a lawyer and not as a witness, he can’t try to introduce evidence under the guise of a legal argument.

A poorly executed attempt at jury nullification.

It would be a fairly major hole in the trial process if you could avoid a claim being examined by the prosecution by simply not mentioning it until after you've finished giving, or not giving, evidence.

[mutantpoodle]

Didds wrote..... It will be nothing to do with his job.

I realise that
I had left a space i order to suggest a new paragraph in post

I thought it interesting that he had so much time available to go out and inconvenience so many of us...so I wondered what his job was

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
This discussion is now clearly off-topic for DAK. I am moving the thread to Legal Issues so that discussion can continue. (Please stick to legal issues though!) (chas49)