The acquittal of Labour councillor Ricky Jones — who on video made a throat-slitting gesture and declared that far-right protesters should have their throats cut — has shocked many. The jury needed barely half an hour to find him not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.
To critics, this looks like a glaring example of a two-tier legal system. Yet, as strange as it sounds, this very judgment may later serve as a shield for defendants on the other side of the political spectrum.
How Precedent Works (and Doesn’t)
It’s important to be clear: Jones’s acquittal does not set a binding legal precedent. Only higher courts, such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, can do that.
But Crown Court verdicts still matter. Lawyers can cite them in argument. Juries can be swayed by them. And, crucially, they feed into public perception of what counts as “figurative speech” versus criminal incitement.
Examples of How This Could Play Out
- Future Protest Rhetoric
Imagine a right-leaning activist at a rally declaring:
“We should string them all up.”
Under ordinary circumstances, that could trigger charges. But the defence might now argue: “In the Jones case, throat-cutting gestures were excused as metaphor. My client’s comments should be treated the same way.” - Online Statements
A politically unfashionable figure posts something angry online — calling for harsh action against an opposing group.
The defence could ask: “How is this different from Jones calling for throats to be cut in front of thousands, yet being cleared?” - Appeals & Sentencing
Defendants already convicted of violent speech might use the Jones outcome as part of their appeal, or at least to argue for lighter sentences.
The Positive Side of a Negative Verdict
For those who feel the justice system is rigged, the Jones acquittal looks like another nail in the coffin of fairness. But paradoxically, it also opens a door.
- Consistency demands symmetry. If courts excuse inflammatory rhetoric on one side, they will face mounting pressure to excuse it on the other.
- Public perception forces accountability. Every future case will now be judged against the Jones verdict, and the courts will find it harder to play favourites without fuelling outrage.
- Defence lawyers have a new weapon. Even if not binding, they can now wave this case in front of juries and say: “If he can say it, so can my client.”
Where This Could Lead
- A levelling effect — future defendants across the spectrum arguing for equal treatment.
- Increased scrutiny of judges and prosecutors, knowing the public is watching for double standards.
- Potentially even a shift in lawmaking, as pressure builds to clarify what is and isn’t acceptable speech.
Final Thought
The Jones verdict is, on the surface, a symbol of a justice system tilted by political winds. But history shows that even flawed judgments can become tools in unexpected hands.
If used wisely, today’s bad judgment might just become tomorrow’s line of defence for free speech, consistency, and fairness.
Hope isn’t what they promise you. It’s how you carry on when they don’t deliver. – Dave Carrera
