A JuryAfter calling to cut the throat of far-flung workers, the decision to clean a suspended labor councilor to encourage violent disorder cannot be made from the case of Lucy Konoli, Advocate Claimed.
58 -year -old Ricky Jones faced a test Snarecebroke crown court In view of right-wing murders, a speech at an anti-racism rally last year described distant Nazi fascists as “disgusting Nazi fascists” to distant Nazi fascists “.
On August 7, 2024, a councilor surrounded by supporters at Walthamsto in East London was filmed saying: “They are hating Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”
The gamblers discussed for more than half an hour and found that he was not guilty on Friday.
It compared the case to conservative and reform politicians to take “two-tier Justice” decisions with Mrs. Konoli, who was jailed for 31 months when he called a tweet for “large-scale exile”. asylum seekers And on the day of Southport attacks, “set fire to all f ****** hotels”.
Former Home Secretary and Tory Leadership candidate Sir James Kleverly also asked Ricky Jones to “distort” the decision to clean the jury, saying: “Such distorted decisions are adding anger that people feel and increase the belief that there is no dispute. Criminal justice system,
The lawyers have stated that cases should not be faced in the form of coni and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced the test, where Konoli convicted, did not.
Peter Stringfello, a Solicitor of Brett Wilson, said: “Both (Jones and Connoli) said very unpleasant things.
“However, I am afraid that both of them have a problem after that. It comes from those who have got some kind of political agenda in my view.
“They were facing completely different allegations and a large part of those different allegations is racial element.
“If you look at the Conoli case … then his intention is of a racial nature.”
Konoli convicted last year for inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing the written material on X on X.
On July 29 last year, he posted: “Mass Departation Now, all f ****** set fire to all the bastards filled with bastards for everyone in the hotels, if it makes me racist, it should happen.”
“She directs everyone to the fact that it was a racial comment,” said Mr. Stringfello.
“He is guilty of that intention … he admitted that he intended to shake racial hatred.
“Jones’ case is different because one, he is facing completely different allegations: he is facing encouraging violent disorder.
“And the difference with him is saying: ‘This is not what I intended to do’.”
Mr. Stringfellow said that, in the case of Konoli, racially increased discourse on social media translated into real-life violence across the country-while Mr. Jones’ comments did not cause violent disorder at a rally.
“What he (Konoli) did, followed his comments about threatening to burn people in the hotel, it’s okay what happened then – and people were trying to burn people in the hotel.”
Ernest Aduva, partner of Stoco Partnership Solicitor, said that comparison between Jones and Konoli cases was “wrong”.
He said, “We should be honest about what is happening here. The decision in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,” he said.
“A jury heard the evidence, tested it and unanimously decided that he was not guilty.
“This is prejudice or ‘not two-tier justice’-this is a justice system that is believed to do: to separate the facts from noise.
“Comparison with the Lucy Konoli case is incorrect.
“Lucy Konoli blamed. There was no test, no cross-examination, no jury. He admitted a specific offense: by shaking racial hatred online.
“Ricky Jones faced a different allegation … with a high burden of evidence.
“The jury decided that the crown was not complete.
“This does not mean that the protest was not emotional or loud – this means that there was not enough evidence to prove the intention of provoking violence. This distinction matters.
“I think why emotions move high. But in a misleading story, leveling two different situations does not make any favor for justice.
“The fact that a black person in a protest can obtain a fair test and may be acquitted, he should not be seen as injustice, but the system as evidence can still correct it.”
He said: “The law is not correct, but it should rest on the evidence – not an opinion, pressure or politics.”
Hodge, Jones and Alan’s lawyers protest and public order team chief Laura Alan said that two cases involved separate decisions, which needed to be kept in their legal context and it is “clearly aggressive” to the general members of the public, sitting on the jury that he suggested that he had not worked properly.
If there is anything close to the two-level system in the British jurisdiction, it is one that historically “is not in favor of ethnic minorities”, although according to Ms. Elon, it has been worked to try to fix the situation.
A judge gave a verdict on the punishment of Konoli when he said he was guilty, while a jury heard the evidence during the test and could not find him guilty.
Ms. Elon said that she is “just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Faraj is choosing to do as part of his political grandeur”.
He said: “She (Faraj) is suggest that these 12 people, whom I think he does not know anything, has not taken his decision on the evidence, but on some other opposite purpose.
“They are 12 members of the jury who have been randomly elected, who have performed their civilian duty, have heard evidence in the case and concluded that they cannot ensure that Ricky Jones was guilty.
“The way our jury system works, they are not required, and certainly not allowed, to explain the reasons for their decision.”
He said: “We all know that the jury did not find Ricky Jones guilty. We do not know that we do not even know the political background of any of these people. We do not know their ideas on immigration or race.
“We don’t know any of that stuff and this is the whole thing.”