Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the
justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.

We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.

That happens world wide, most obviously with self defence.

The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes
(and most of the general public)

And in the law's eyes too.

The most common situation where a jury lets someone
off when they are clearly guilty in the law's eyes is when
someone kills someone else when the killed person is
say asleep etc instead of just telling the cops about the
physical abuse they have suffered or as well as telling the
cops about it and that not stopping the physical abuse.


One of these cases the baddie was shot in his car after assaulting the
female security guard and was probably no threat at the time he was shot.
She got off, and so she should have in this instance.
She has not worked as a guard since and it was a few years ago now.