The acquittal of Labour councillor Ricky Jones \u2014 who on video made a throat-slitting gesture and declared that far-right protesters should have their throats cut \u2014 has shocked many. The jury needed barely half an hour to find him not guilty of encouraging violent disorder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s important to be clear: Jones\u2019s acquittal does not<\/strong> set a binding legal precedent. Only higher courts, such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, can do that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Crown Court verdicts still matter<\/strong>. Lawyers can cite them in argument. Juries can be swayed by them. And, crucially, they feed into public perception of what counts as \u201cfigurative speech\u201d versus criminal incitement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If used wisely, today\u2019s bad judgment might just become tomorrow\u2019s line of defence for free speech, consistency, and fairness.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hope isn’t what they promise you. It’s how you carry on when they don\u2019t deliver.<\/em> \u2013 Dave Carrera<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The acquittal of Labour councillor Ricky Jones \u2014 who on video made a throat-slitting gesture and declared that far-right protesters should have their throats cut \u2014 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":737,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[182],"tags":[286,158,285],"class_list":["post-736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-thoughts","tag-bad-judgement","tag-law","tag-legal"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\nHow Precedent Works (and Doesn\u2019t)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nExamples of How This Could Play Out<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Imagine a right-leaning activist at a rally declaring:
\u201cWe should string them all up.\u201d<\/em>
Under ordinary circumstances, that could trigger charges. But the defence might now argue: \u201cIn the Jones case, throat-cutting gestures were excused as metaphor. My client\u2019s comments should be treated the same way.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
A politically unfashionable figure posts something angry online \u2014 calling for harsh action against an opposing group.
The defence could ask: \u201cHow is this different from Jones calling for throats to be cut in front of thousands, yet being cleared?\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Defendants already convicted of violent speech might use the Jones outcome as part of their appeal, or at least to argue for lighter sentences.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Positive Side of a Negative Verdict<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nWhere This Could Lead<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nFinal Thought<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n