Wednesday, 3 December 2008

Colourful Street Theatre…

A Southend peace campaigner arrested with a seven-inch knife outside 10 Downing Street has been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Strange sort of ‘peace campaigner’…
The 41-year-old Southend man, who has changed his name by deed poll to the Ninja Ant, told police he wanted to harm himself in a protest about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was said to have held the blade to his stomach in Whitehall in March 2007 and threatened to sacrifice his life.

Jurors failed to reach a verdict on a charge of having a bladed article in a public place in July and he was due to face a retrial yesterday at Southwark Crown Court.

But Judge David Higgins said he doubted a retrial was in the public interest, considering how much public money had already been spent on the case, He added: “What possible sort of sentence does the Crown think could properly be imposed for an incident of this nature, taking the Crown's case at its highest?”
I can’t see how they could possibly have failed to reach a verdict, but that’s juries for you.

Still, it seems you can get away with anything if you seem like enough of a loon that dealing with you is just too much trouble. That’s nice to know…
verdict The Ninja Ant, of Norwich Avenue, Southend, told the earlier trial hearing a Kylie Minogue song on his MP3 player had made him change his mind about using the knife.
Maybe he just made up his mind to stab Kylie next time?
The peace-campaigner is in the process of changing his name again by deed poll – to General Ninja Ant.

He explained: “It’s because I’m not a civilian any more and I believe in armed revolution.”
Yeeees. Hard to see why he wasn’t just sectioned instead, isn’t it?


Stan said...

There is a growing trend of juries no longer basing their verdicts on evidence and according to the law anymore. For me this is a serious concern as it brings into question one of the principles of "the rule of law" - that noobdy may be above the law. People may well have very good mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account when it comes to sentencing - but should never be considered in the verdict. For example, a woman who is obviously guilty of murdering an abusive husband has a good case for a less harsh sentence, but the only verdict a jury should reach is a "guilty" one.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. I can't imagine how they concluded that he wasn't guilty. Mad, yes, but undeniably guilty...