Perverse verdicts are sometimes delivered by our courts. It is an uncomfortable price that we pay for having the justice system that we do.
Any experienced detective from my era of policing will furrow their brow, wearily puff their cheeks out, and shake their heads as they tell you the story of the one, or two, or maybe more, that irritatingly got away.
Through gritted teeth, they’ll growl that they knew the defendant was guilty, but knowing something and proving something are two very different things.
**ARE YOU READING THIS ON OUR APP? DOWNLOAD NOW FOR THE BEST GB NEWS EXPERIENCE**
Sometimes, defendants are acquitted because the evidence is simply not convincing enough. Others walk free because their villainous chums manage to knobble a jury through fear and intimidation, and on occasion, a defendant will put forward a defence that convinces or confuses a court to the point where only a ‘not guilty’ verdict can safely be returned.
And on other occasions, courts will return verdicts that make little or no sense to anyone!
It is not sufficient for a defendant to be convicted purely because they commit a criminal act, known in legal terms as the ‘Actus Reus’. It must also be proved that they possessed a guilty mind, the ‘Mens Rea’.
One of the most disgusting examples of this in recent times was the abominable case of Valdo Calocane, an absolute monster who butchered to death three wonderful people, Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, and Ian Coates, as well as seriously injuring a number of others in Nottingham in 2023.
The Labour councillor's acquittal over call to cut protestors' throats has one silver lining - Peter Bleksley | PA
The piece of garbage that is Calocane was able to argue that he was not guilty of murder due to diminished responsibility, in other words, that he didn’t have a guilty mind.
As a result of that, he was only found guilty of manslaughter, and consequently, he is probably right now, as I write this, enjoying the August sunshine in the gardens of the psychiatric hospital in which he is currently detained. That, my friends, is truly perverse.
Today, a court returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict in relation to a man called Ricky Jones, a currently suspended Labour councillor, who was filmed making revolting comments whilst running his finger across his throat in a clearly threatening way, during a protest last year, which came in the wake of the Southport slaughter.
Case closed, you might say on watching the footage of this, but no, it is another fundamental cornerstone of our justice system that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, and a court decided that Mr Jones was not guilty.
In essence, Jones put forward a number of reasons as to why he said and did things that didn’t accurately reflect who he really is.
That formed his defence to the charge he faced. It was his reasoning as to why he did not possess a guilty mind, and a court has chosen to believe him.
‘Two-tier justice’, some will claim, and I can understand those frustrations, but this is the system we have, and it is a system I want to preserve, improve, and not dismantle. I would always want to be tried by twelve of my peers, and not by members of the Establishment.
I strongly suspect that tonight some of his defence team will be quaffing a chilled and expensive glass or three of a crisp white wine, by way of celebration.
They will argue, of course, that they were merely doing their job, and they were. Please don’t fur up your arteries by getting too exasperated by Mr Jones, the behaviour you saw on video, and the verdict.
Remind yourself that Mr Jones is, in essence, a complete nobody that you would never have heard of, had somebody not filmed him once upon a time.
Delve into your fridge and grab a drop of what you fancy, or pop the kettle on and have a nice cuppa. Treat yourself to a biscuit.
This will not be the last verdict that will give you cause for concern, and the sooner you forget the name Ricky Jones, the better. Life’s too short, and he’s not worth it.