The legal analysis in Sumption's first paragraph would be liable to receive a failing grade if it appeared in a first year undergraduate law essay. Simply put, he does not acknowledge the existence of excuses in the law of criminal damage, which were argued and put to the jury.
https://twitter.com/swgannon/status/1479753120410480640
Sumption may believe that the excuses should not apply to the facts of this case, and should not have been put to the jury. Fair enough - but that point needs to be made, at least briefly. As it stands, he leaves the reader with a misleading impression of the law and this case.
This piece is, of course, not a law essay. But it nevertheless makes an assertion about the law and its application to this case. On my view it is highly inappropriate for a former judge to make such an assertion in a way which misleads the public about the law and this case.
For an analysis of the excuses for criminal damage, as they were argued in this case, see the post by @BarristerSecret -
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1479182705208270854?t=XToGT1-c-fAVOtBSrI958Q&s=19
Looks like Sumption's article is not only misleading about the law, but also about the history of the slave trade
https://twitter.com/IWBAShitShow/status/1479820722784583688?t=V-S_t9iZWoVVRozqKPyRiA&s=19
On that point, more on the reluctance of 1895 Bristolians to celebrate such philanthropy...
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1479876588728729602?t=J6DIYgY5zFBIzb1KKFVtZA&s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
