One of the benefits and the curses of the Jury system in criminal law is that occasionally juries will turn out perverse verdicts. A jury might, for their own reasons, ignore the evidence put in front of them, even very strong and convincing evidence that shows that the defendant is guilty and instead vote instead for a not guilty verdict. This appears to have been what has happened in the case of the Colston Four who were seen on video vandalising the Colston statue in Bristol but who were acquitted by a jury in Bristol.

There is a lot to debate about this case most pertinently in my mind the decision to hold this trial in Bristol a city dominated by the aggressive and sometimes violent far left rather than somewhere else where a jury might be found that might not be either inherently biased or possibly be put at risk of intimidation. It is a regular feature of the UK’s justice system that cases that are associated with strong local feeling are tried elsewhere so that a jury that is more likely to be fair can be found. A case in point here is the one of Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper. He was tried at the Central Criminal Court in London partly because of the seriousness of his crimes but also so that a jury could be found from people from an area that had not directly suffered from Sutcliffe’s crimes. Sutcliffe got a fair trial at the Old Bailey and was convicted in a fair trial, something he might not have got had his trial taken place in Yorkshire. There were pertinent and valid reasons to move this case of the Colston Four to somewhere like Gloucester Crown Court and thereby remove the jury pool away from Bristol.

The Twitter commentator Barrister’s Horse who is a person who I have taken to regularly reading has commented on the Colston case and they have made several comments both directly on the case and on policing in general that I have little difficulty in agreeing with. The first point of agreement that they make in their Twitter thread is that the local feeling about the statue of Colston was that it should remain in situ but with an explanatory notice attached to it explaining about Colston, his life and history. However the left wing activists were not content to allow this and took it into their own hands to demolish the statue.

The second aspect of Barrister’s Horse’s comments that I agree with wholeheartedly is their comments about the failings of the police. Barrister’s Horse said that the police’s functions are being hampered by police management policy which made them too cowardly and unable to stand up to activists. Barrister’s Horse is correct here. The police failed to perform their basic functions of both protecting property from vandalism whilst simultaneously facilitating peaceful protest. This failure to perform basic functions is not merely a problem that afflicts the local police force in Bristol but is one that afflicts many other police forces across the country.

Barrister’s Horse said:

Barrister’s Horse is correct. The police are losing respect. Not only that but respect for the law itself is being undermined by the bent and biased way that we are policed. I believe that every time the police kneel for BLM Marxists, ignore the disruption caused by Extinction Rebellion or Insulate Britain, pander to the desires of some to eviscerate free speech by selectively policing speech or arrest women for protesting against the excesses of the cult of trans, then respect is lost. Barrister’s Horse is right to say that every time that the police bow down before shouty middle class activist it damages respect and adherence to the law.

Our police have become politicised and so has to a large extent the criminal law. The only way I see a way out of this serious problem is for there to be a reformist government committed to judicial, social and cultural liberty and impartiality to deal with the legislative mess and the arrival of someone akin to Sir Robert Peel to do the same for the police. Our police in particular are now particularly bent and that is not something that bodes well for the future.