A dilema is posed by the acquittal of Palestine Action members who were found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage with the defence that they were trying to prevent the company, Israeli Arms Manufacturer Elbit, from commiting genocide in Gaza. I applaud the action of the jury in this case – but with reservations. I think it is highly likely that the defendants did in fact break UK law. Can a jury decide what is legal or not? That is the role of Parliament under our democracy. Would I be more concerned if a jury acquited defendants for lynching a person of colour? Of course. It is notable that the judicial system has just ruled the governments classification of Palestinian Action as a terror group is illegal. The government has said it wants to end trial by jury in many cases.
Judges can also make mistatkes but should be guided by the letter of the law – and there are many cases of their errors. A judge in the case above would almost certainly have found the defendants guilty and possibly imposed jail terms. So what do I think? I cannot pick and chose a jury or decide whether they were right or wrong. But I think ultimately I would prefer to have a judiciary that maintains its independence. However that has to be balanced by a parliamentary system that is also fair and balanced. At present we have a Labour government with a huge majority which took over from a Tory government with a huge majority. This is not reflective of British society. I would take a risk that people would see through the racism and bigotry of Reform and vote for Proportional Representation. The UK is not a radical society. the judiciary may heavily reflect the white privileged man, but is steeped in our constitutional history.
Personally I will favour any system which denies ultimate power to a single person or even a single group. America has shown itself to be a poor example of a democracy. The Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President and look at the mess they are in! The Daily Mail recently published names and photo’s of judges they deemed to be “traitors” for upholding the law as written. They too would promote mob rule, if dictated by them and which promoted their cronies.
So ultimately, after much disagreement within my head! I would leave things as they are with the judiciary