Thread by @AdamWagner1

I will let others explain the exact procedure but there is a basic issue which will be becoming clear to ministers - a jury verdict sets no precedent, so the law is as it was, but a Court of Appeal decision would set an important precedent, which may not be the one the govt wants

https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1479402576986656772

Throughout yesterday people including government ministers were talking as if the Colston verdict set a precedent, which in legal terms is wrong. The irony of wanting to "do something" about it is that the "something" may cause an actual precedent to be set

One other point: on maybe the most important point in the case, whether "lawful excuse" element of the offence can include reference to the human rights concept of proportionality, this will ultimately be decided regardless of the Colston case as there will be other cases...

... as I know from my own work that the impact of Ziegler in the Supreme Court is still being worked out across other criminal offences, and criminal cases are being appealed to the High Court and beyond on that point.

And to return to the point I made yesterday, the government's #PolicingBill which criminalises various forms of peaceful protest includes a number of offences which include the "lawful excuse" element so that's another reason we will see a lot more of this

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1479002683768033280?s=20

Some of the new offences the government is proposing to criminalise "disruptive protest" - a licence for Colston-type trials and verdicts to hugely proliferate. bills.parliament.uk/publications/4…

Every trial will have to include a proportionality assessment, which includes reference to freedom of speech and assembly, expert evidence on the importance of the cause etc etc. What a self-inflicted mess