It's either me or...

...George Monbiot that doesn't understand the judicial system

In all honesty, it could be me, so please correct me if I'm wrong here

Today’s climate activist ‘criminals’ are tomorrow’s heroes: silencing them in court is immoral

It’s not ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ if campaigners cannot explain their motivations to a jury

Right. Some judge has told climate activists that they cannot explain their reasons for doing what they do, to the jury. Such reasons not being relevant to the trial. The activists are up in arms about it

So why does an accused go before a jury? To decide their innocence or guilt

If guilt is admitted, there is no need for a trial, but if the accused pleads not guilty, then a trial is required, to get to the truth

Therefore, if you're up before a jury, you have pled not guiilty. Right? So to say to the jury, 'I did this for reasons of X, Y and Z', you are telling them that you are guilty. Right?

So if you plead not guilty to get a jury trial, then tell the jury your reasons for being guilty, then the jury let you off by finding you not guilty, that doesn't make you not guilty, that's just jury nullification. Right?

No judge in the land is going to allow a defendant to go for jury nullification, and if it's blatantly attempted in court, it's contempt. Right?

To tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”: this is the oath defendants in an English court must take. But when David Nixon sought to do so, he was sent to jail.

It's the oath that whitnesses must take. And in a jury trial, where the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, refers to the truth of any information pertaining to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. not their reasons for being guilty, which is not what a jury trial is about

Right?

Nixon, who had taken part in an Insulate Britain protest blocking a junction in the City of London, was on trial for causing a public nuisance, a charge that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He sought to explain his motivation to the jury. But the judge, Silas Reid, had instructed the defendants not to mention their reasons for taking action: namely climate breakdown, fuel poverty and the need for better insulation. When Nixon disregarded this instruction, Reid handed him an eight-week jail sentence for contempt of court.

If you tell the jury you didn't do it, you are trying to get a not guilty verdict 

If you tell the jury you did do it, you're giving them an easy guilty verdict, which would be a daft thing to do if you already pled guilty

If it's plainly obvious you are guilty, but you plead not guilty to get a jury trial, then tell the jury why you did it, you are going for jury nulification, which in the eyes of the court, is contempt

Try as I might, I can't see it any other way

The same instructions were issued by Reid to a defendant in another protest trial, Ruth Cook. She obeyed his directions but, she told me, “It felt really odd. It’s hard to connect to the jury if you can’t explain why you are there.”

The only thing a defendant should ever be explaining to a jury is why they are innocent. There are no circumstances in which you would be explaining the reasons for your guilt to a jury

That comes later when the judge is sentancing you. When you have been found guilty (or pled guilty) and the judge is deciding if he should throw the key at you, that's the time for reasons. It's called mitigation (Julia has countless stories about what passes for mitigation these days)

This is the point where your solicitor spins some bullshit to the judge about how you're the real victim in all this, to try and get you a suspended sentance. Or in this case, why you mistakenly believe that weather in Pakistan is caused by people driving to work in watford

She told me: “It’s as if you had hit someone in self-defence but were not allowed to say you were being attacked

If you are arrested for assault after defending yourself, you say I am not guilty of assault, as I was attacked and was defending myself

If you are arrested for public nuisance after blocking the roads...

I was saying things that I thought were just my opinion. Such as that my idea of significant disruption is one-third of Pakistan being under water

...and you say, yes I did this, but I thought I was justified because...

You are admitting guilt. A better analogy would be getting arrested for assault and saying yes, I hit the guy, but he's a wanker

When judges and juries considering other charges are allowed to hear protesters’ motivations, they have in some cases taken a broader view of the law. For example, in 2019 two climate activists were unanimously acquitted by a jury of criminal damage

And that's why the jury should not be given irrelevant information. This climate change madness has infected more people than it hasn't, so it's likely there are some sympathetic jurors who will be happy to nullify if they think the defendants are selfless people who are only trying to save the planet

Same if the jury think the defendants are cretinous, childish morons who should be sent down for life. Guilt or innocenxce is the only remit of the jury. The rest is up to the judge

Right?

The protesters condemned as criminals today will be the heroes of tomorrow. One of the greatest fears of those who wield power is that judges and juries will come to see them this way.

I have a feeling they may be viewed as the most deluded idiots that ever lived