Kneecap...

[naka]

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

The Crown prosecution service can appeal this decision but I don't think they will.

[brokencrossbar1]

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

The Crown prosecution service can appeal this decision but I don't think they will.

Suspect it would be a massive own goal if they went a second time for them. This has backfired badly on them and any further court exposure will only be to the benefit of Kneecap and the Gaza campaign supporters.

Fair play to them and fair play to Phoenix. Huge result

[David McKeown]

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

The Crown prosecution service can appeal this decision but I don't think they will.

Not an appeal as such but similar. Much more common in England and Wales than it is over here so they may go down that route.

Well done to the solicitors and barristers instructed in the case and to Phoenix for their involvement as well.

[David McKeown]

So if that court hasn't jurisdiction, then can the Met go to another court which may have jurisdiction or is that a stupid question from the uninformed?

Not a stupid question. Short answer is no. These types of offences have to be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.  The magistrates court though is what's called a creature of statute. In other words for it to be able to deal with cases they must be presented to the court in a manner compliant with statute. The Magistrate (who I think was legally qualified in this case) has ruled that wasn't done therefore he can't hear the case.

[gallsman]

CPS appealing the decision. You'd have thought they wouldn't want the hassle of it.

[Rossfan]

Orders from their Zionist overlords no doubt!

[trileacman]

CPS appealing the decision. You'd have thought they wouldn't want the hassle of it.

To be fair it's much more to do with establishing a point of law rather than looking to nail O'Hannidh. AFAIK it's not a new law so it's strange the interpretation has not been established before now.

[Main Street]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

[David McKeown]

CPS appealing the decision. You'd have thought they wouldn't want the hassle of it.

To be fair it's much more to do with establishing a point of law rather than looking to nail O'Hannidh. AFAIK it's not a new law so it's strange the interpretation has not been established before now.

It's not as strange as you'd think it might be. Often technical matters might be decided at first instance but if they are the judgements are not binding and it often takes a high profile case to set the precedent. That's because higher profile cases tend to be appealed more often for a plethora of reasons.

[David McKeown]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the law and nuance around arts, do you think *legally* he is guilty? Or at least in potential trouble?

[JoG2]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the law and nuance around arts, do you think *legally* he is guilty? Or at least in potential trouble?

Who legally defines a certain group as terrorists if that certain group, under international law, was formed to defend themselves from an invading country(no prizes for working out which cuntry)?

[David McKeown]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the law and nuance around arts, do you think *legally* he is guilty? Or at least in potential trouble?

I don't know enough about the case to be honest. It is a quite well developed area of the law because it has to balance the right to freedom of expression against what the law deems hate speech. I wouldn't like to call it at this stage. I would think a dismissal on a technicality might suit all sides

[Baile Brigín 2]

Whilst I wouldn't at all like that the Kneecap lad run the risk of being tagged a terrorist fellow-traveler and all that entails but I'd have a strong curiosity as to how this case would pan out in court with a legal 'dream team' taking on a censorious establishment wielding a repressive legal tool of inverse political wokeness against a form of expression made on stage by an artist in the context of a serious humanitarian cause that just happens to clash with the government's 'greater' agenda.

It does strike me as a case with the potential to go very far but take years to resolve.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the law and nuance around arts, do you think *legally* he is guilty? Or at least in potential trouble?

Who legally defines a certain group as terrorists if that certain group, under international law, was formed to defend themselves from an invading country(no prizes for working out which cuntry)?

For the purposes of this question, the British state.

[DaleCooper]

The case is a good reminder of the confident stupidity of many people. Would pay good money to see them have a discussion with the many brilliant lebanese Christians ex pats.