He argued that ‘prevention of crime’ could be relied upon as a defence and that the jury could consider whether the presence of the statue itself constituted an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
He asked the jury to consider if the statue constituted an ‘indecent display’ under Section 1 of the, more obscure, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.
He asked the jury to consider whether a conviction of the defendants would be a disproportionats infringement of their rights under Articles 9,10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, following the case of DPP v. Ziegler  UKSC 2
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Matrix \ChambersBlinne represented Rhian GrahamShe argued that slavery was a bad thing and that the conditions under which slaves were transported were horrible. She called in aid George Floyd's death under the knee of the arresting police officer.
"He is an out-of-the-box thinker and is tactically astute." Legal 500 2022
Raj Chada, Hodge Jones & Allen
Raj represented Jake Skuse.He argued that the criminal offence was the statue remaining in place.
Tom Wainwright, Garden Court ChambersVery experienced. He's like a terrier - he doesn't give up." Chambers UK, 2021
Tom represented Milo Ponsford.He argued that removing the statue was like removing a cancer.So these four fearless, fearsome, frighteningly expensive, out of the box terriers between them have managed to persuade a British jury that the night is the day and the sun is the moon.The Colston Four: Willoughby, aged 22, Graham, 30, Skuse, 33 and Ponsford, 26, were charged with Criminal Damage, after being identified as prominent in the removal of a public statue from its plinth by forcibly dragging it and then rolling it into Bristol Harbour, causing damage to the statue and the railings in the process, and necessitating public expenditure in retrieving the statue from the Harbour and taking it to a safe place - a museum, where it remains, broken and daubed in paint.Criminal damage occurs when someone unlawfully, and intentionally or recklessly, damages or destroys property belonging to another person. This would include arson, forced entry into a property, graffiti on a public building, but, following this verdict in the Bristol Crown Court, no longer the destruction of public property.The offence of Criminal Damage was established in the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For conviction to be achieved, the following elements must be established:
- Damage (temporary or permanent) was caused.
- That damage occurred to property.
- The damaged property belonged to another.
- The damage was caused without lawful excuse.
- An intention to cause the damage, or recklessness as to whether damage would be caused.
- "Forensic science is not immutable. They're (sic) not written in tablets of stone, and the biggest mistake that anyone can make—public, expert or anyone else alike—is to believe that forensic science is somehow beyond reproach: it is not! The biggest miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom, many of them emanate from cases in which forensic science has been shown to be wrong. And the moment a forensic scientist or anyone else says: 'I am sure this marries up with that' I get worried." Mansfield, here, quite definite that forensics are not the dog's bollocks, after all.
- and from News Shopper: “Stephen Lawrence family lawyer questioned over evidence in 1990s court hearings”
A LAWYER acting for Stephen Lawrence’s family has been questioned over how evidence in the murder of their son was handled during court hearings in the 1990s. Michael Mansfield QC appeared at the Old Bailey today where Gary Dobson, aged 36, and 35-year-old David Norris are on trial for the 1993 murder. Both defendants claim clothing seized from their homes after the murder and garments from Mr Lawrence have been contaminated over the years.They deny killing Stephen Lawrence.
Jurors heard Mr Mansfield had represented the family in a 1996 private prosecution at the Old Bailey, a 1997 inquest at Southwark Coroner’s Court and a public inquiry in 1998. But he denied handling any of the clothing seized from suspects in those hearings, saying police had been in control of them. Mr Mansfield said: “I wouldn’t do it myself because obviously there’s a risk of contamination.” He said the first trial had not lasted long, adding: “From my recollection I don’t remember any exhibits, save one and that was a weapon in a box.” Under cross-examination by Dobson’s defence barrister Tim Roberts, he was asked about a transcript from the inquest in which Mr Mansfield had asked Dobson: “Do you recognise this jacket?” Mr Mansfield replied: “I can’t be specific because I might not have had anything in my hand at all.” He said that if the jacket had been held up, it would have still been in the windowed brown paper evidence bags used by police.See, wonderful, ain't it, fair makes your heart glow, how lawyers can advance both sides of an argument, depending on who's paying them, and mean them both very sincerely - forensic science is not immutable, apart from when it is being used to convict two lowlifes who were never, in any event, going to get a fair trial. And clothing - and forensic evidence on it - can be contaminated but not when it is in a very special sort of brown paper bag and handled by an eminent QC. The evidence in the Lawrence murder trial, however, despite being seventeen years old and having admittedly been mishandled, well, now, that was immutable, cast in stone, all that stuff.
- A: Good morning, your Honour, Mr Justice Treacy.
- There can't be too many people of jury service age in the country who are unaware of the almost two decades of accusations of murder made against Mr Dobson and Mr Norris et al, of the widely screened video recording of them fantasising - but not enacting - racialist atrocities. (All of those here gathered who regularly call for various forms of politician dismemberment must pray that they never appear, charged with anything, before Hizonner, above, for such will be deemed by him as proof of their wickedness and deserving of an extra two years in jail.) Most will have heard of, if not read, Mr Dacre-Fuckpig's front page outburst calling Mr Dobson and Mr Norris Murderers! and defying them to sue him and his shitrag, the Daily Mail, as though they could afford to sue anyone; most will know, too, that MediaMinster regarded the failure of the private prosecution of these two gentlemen as nothing short of scandalous, so scandalous that the law must be changed in order to put them on trial again. Most will, in short, have been bombarded by a relentless campaign from MediaMinster, the filth and from the victim's family and friends insisting that these two (and others) despite having already been acquitted were as guilty as Hell. Seeing as how everyone on the country had been told over almost twenty years that these two were guilty, how on Earth were they ever to get a fair trial? But fair trials don't interest our modern, whoreson, jackanapes lawyers, like Mr Coleman's Mustard, above. Convictions, that's the thing, convictions count towards a proper career, can't beat a good conviction and a heavy sentence, good for the govament, good for skymadeupnewsandfilth, good for Old Bill. And that's what really matters. All rise. Mrs WOAR insists on a previous thread that the Lawrence cops actually got it more or less right, insofar, at least, as the evidence allowed them so to do, and that prosecutorial waters were muddied by a clamorous race relations industry; mr jgm2, like most of us, remains intuitively - for how can it be otherwise, the accused not having had a fair trial - convinced of the guilt of Norris and Dobson, others lament the lack of orchestrated, pseudo-political activity in the case of the lonesome death of non-BrightALevelStudent Ian Tomlinson, and many others; a poor old bloke, separated, who liked a drink, somehow less important than a son of intolerable, pushy, motormouthing parents, his public killing by an officer of the state not giving rise to the sustained crescendo of Abbottisms, Howeisms and Phillipsisms, one is almost tempted to propose that the killing of Steven Lawrence was hijacked by career racists of the third kind, people like Mrs Lawrence, who would remind us daily, if she could, of her loss, her pain. I always remember that guy, in the Remembrance Day Enniskillen bombing, Gordon Wilson, whose daughter died in his arms, and who had no words but of forgiveness, and contrast him with today's whining, vengeful publicity-seeking harpies.
- The two anthologies of the works of mr ishmael and his young friend stanislav: Honest Not Invent
and Vent Stack are available to buy for mere money from Lulu or
Amazon. It is cheaper to buy from Lulu. Register an account with Lulu to save a couple of quid, as going straight into the link provided below seems to
make paypal think it's ok to charge in dollars, and apply their own conversion
rate, which will put the price up slightly for a UK buyer. Once the new account
is set up, follow our link; a pop-up box asks for age confirmation - simply set
the date to (say) 1 January 1960, and proceed. (If you type the title, the
anthology will not appear as a search result until the "show explicit
content" box - found at the bottom left by scrolling down - has been
checked. You may also see the age verification box, as above, at this
The full title is "Vent Stack love from stanislav" by ishmael smith, and the cover you'll see is red with white titles and a picture of Buster the Previous Blog Dog having a green thought in a green shade.Link for the paperback:
Or...shorter link, which might make it easier if you wish to paste it into an email and tell a friend:Honest, Not Invent is available in paperback or hardback.Link for Hard Back :Link for Paper Back :At checkout, try PROWRITINGAID15, WELCOME15 or TREAT15 in the coupon box, which takes 15% off the price before postage. If this code has expired by the time you reach this point, try a google search for "Lulu.com voucher code" and see what comes up.With the 15% voucher, the book (including delivery to a UK address) should cost £10.89...........................................................