It looks like this may just be act 1, of what could be an on-going bit of entertainment
Possum3 said
06:44 AM Jan 10, 2023
It is the poor old muggins taxpayers footing the bill for this pair of twits to ponce about in Court abusing the privilege of their "rights" that is the oft unseen problem with this farce.
Magnarc said
08:00 AM Jan 10, 2023
One word aptly describes these two.
----wits.
dorian said
09:19 AM Jan 10, 2023
I'd like to see these two antivaxxers go to jail, but not for ridiculing the judge. In fact, I'd very much like to see Australian juries exercise this part of British law, which I assume is also available to them under Australian law:
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guiltyverdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.
I find it particularly annoying when some ponce in a wig instructs twelve intelligent individuals that they must arrive at the judge's chosen verdict. What then is the purpose of a jury, if all they're doing is rubber stamping the judge's opinion? It seems to me that they're legally entitled to tell the judge to take a flying leap.
Craig1 said
10:25 AM Jan 10, 2023
Should be claiming to be world famous tennis players- All is forgiven!
I have no idea if the link to the story will work on my tablet
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-09/trial-of-former-one-nation-senator-rod-culleton/101837150?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web
Polly and Lady friend appear to be crossing swords with a magistrate
www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-09/trial-of-former-one-nation-senator-rod-culleton/101837150
It looks like this may just be act 1, of what could be an on-going bit of entertainment
One word aptly describes these two.
----wits.
I'd like to see these two antivaxxers go to jail, but not for ridiculing the judge. In fact, I'd very much like to see Australian juries exercise this part of British law, which I assume is also available to them under Australian law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.
I find it particularly annoying when some ponce in a wig instructs twelve intelligent individuals that they must arrive at the judge's chosen verdict. What then is the purpose of a jury, if all they're doing is rubber stamping the judge's opinion? It seems to me that they're legally entitled to tell the judge to take a flying leap.