20 Didcot coal protestors charged!

Is it not good that they are being charged?
Why should they be hurting?
Surly if they truly believe that their actions were right and just, they will be keen to tell a jury and the public in an open court why.
After all, if they are the people who I've read about, they didn't make much effort to keep their actions secret or escape the seen undetected. They are not exactly shy;)

I think that their actions were justifiable, so why shouldn't any one else?

You've been watching too much cout films on telly. You don't get to plead your case to a jury, open public etc. You get to make a small statement to a lone judge (usually one white old bloke) who will have already made up their mind, depending on their own set of prejudices.

That's not the case. Every one has the right to a jury if they so wish. It's just that they don't want you to know your rights. What is more the defense dose not have to accept and censorship that the judge may attempt to impose, the jury have the right hear the full evidence.

I was arrested, charged and prosecuted for having a knife packed in my camping kit on my way to Kings North Climate Camp. I simply demanded a jury and the police looked stupid.

If you don't demand a jury, you will usually automatically be found guilty of what ever the police say you are guilty of. Especially if you accept a magistrate. The magistrates court used to be called the police court at one time, because they normally just agree with whatever the police tell them without any intelligent consideration. If you remember Green Peace forced and intelligent consideration in their Kings North trial, and made government policy look bad.

I don't think the Didcott protesters are 'hurting' because I think that they believe there action was justified.

as i read it, i understood that the OP meant was that the protests are hurting the 'establishment' - ie. s/he means that that portests such as the didcott one are having an effect so they are forced to put through a more severe charge.

whether this is the case is up for debate, but don't ask me - linguistic expression is where i'm at

Yes that makes more sense.

Me stupid!

You are not entitled to a jury trial for aggravated trespass (unless it is conspiracy - all conspiracy cases get to go to jury).

There are three types of offences - summary, either way, and indictable.

Many of the offences protesters are charged with - ag tress, criminal damage below £5000 and lower lever public order offences are summary only. This means they can only be heard in a Magistrates' Court.

Either way offences - such as some of the public order charges such as affray and violent disorder can be heard in either Magistrates or in Crown in front of judge and jury. The Magistrates' court will look at the fact of the case and decide whether or not they think it is suitable for their court. However, the final decision is down to the defendant - and obviously anyone faced with this choice should opt for judge and jury.

Finally, indictable offences, such as murder, can only be held in the Crown and there is no option to hold these at a lower level.

Yes, if you are charged with having a knife on you, you will have the option for a jury trial. However, just shouting and demanding does not get you anywhere if you're charged with a summary only offence (most offences are summary only if the maximum sentence is 6 months or under).

There really should be some way of cleaning up some of the legal bullshit which appears on Indymedia - it is misleading and potentially dangerous for those seeking advice.

A fair trial is a human right, and that is not possible in a magistrates court. They just don't have sufficient rational thinking processes going on there.

You have the right to demand a jury under common law. Although maybe you won't get it now days under the tyranny of the 'legal profession', but it is you're prerogative under common law.

In practical terms I think the punishments imposed for summary convictions are less than remand pending a proper trial by a jury?

maybe they are "hurting" in both senses.