Editing Jury nullification (section)

===England and Wales===
By the late 17th century, the court's power to punish juries was removed in ''[[Bushel's Case]]'' involving a juror on the case against [[William Penn]]. Penn and [[William Mead (merchant)|William Mead]] had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a [[Quaker]] sermon and disturbing the peace but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury now unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force it to bring in a guilty verdict. When it failed to do so, the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court.<ref name= BushellsCase />

[[File:William Penn & William Mead - plaque - 01.jpg|thumb|Plaque at the [[Old Bailey]]]]
Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and after several months, Bushell sought a [[writ of habeas corpus]]. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]], discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.<ref name= Stern2002/> That series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification.<ref name= Abramson1994/> The "courage and endurance" of the jury is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (the [[Old Bailey]]) in London. In a criminal libel case, ''[[Case of the Dean of St Asaph|R. v. Shipley]]'' (1784), 4 Dougl. 73, 99 E.R. 774, at p.&nbsp;824, [[Lord Mansfield]], sitting as a judge in the case, disparaged the practice of jury nullification:

{{quote|So the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.

To be free is to live under a government by law.... Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State.

...

In opposition to this, what is contended for? – That the law shall be, in every particular cause, what any twelve men, who shall happen to be the jury, shall be inclined to think; liable to no review, and subject to no control, under all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the bias of interest in this town, where thousands, more or less, are concerned in the publication of newspapers, paragraphs, and pamphlets. Under such an administration of law, no man could tell, no counsel could advise, whether a paper was or was not punishable [for publishing a libel].}}

A 2016 study exploring the history of juror punishment in England and Wales after Bushel's Case found no clear examples of jurors being punished solely for returning the "wrong" verdict. The closest that a jury came to that was in 1917, when a jury acquitted two teenage boys of arson. The boys had confessed at their pre-trial hearing but entered pleas of not guilty at their trial. [[Home Office]] civil servants suspected the difference between the pleas could be explained by the difference between the boys' admitting that they had caused the fire and their denial that they had done so maliciously. The trial judge did not consider that possibility or was not satisfied with it. On receiving the jury's verdict, he told them that "you have been absolutely regardless of your oath. These men have pleaded guilty, and the evidence is of the clearest possible nature. You are none of you fit to serve on a Jury, but you will remain here until the end of the Sessions". The foreman, George Lathan, considered that a form of punishment for the jury, as the jurors were not going to be permitted to serve on any more juries but were nonetheless required to keep attending court or face contempt proceedings, which Lathan considered a tacit form of imprisonment. Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Office noted that while the judge's conduct "was ill-judged and arbitrary, he did not, so far as I can see, do any act which would justify the Lord Chancellor in removing him from the Bench". Home Office officials wrote to the judge, advising him that his actions "would be impossible for the Home Secretary to defend as constitutional or right", and after several days, the jurors were relieved of their duties. Home Office minutes suggest they did not think that kind of informal punishment of jurors who had returned the "wrong" verdict to be unheard of.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Crosby|first1=K|title=Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: juror punishment in nineteenth- and twentieth-century England|journal=Legal Studies|date=2016|volume=36|issue=2|page=179 |doi=10.1111/lest.12098|s2cid=146794693|url=https://www.academia.edu/33924828}}</ref>

In 1982, during the [[Falklands War]], the [[Royal Navy]] sank the Argentine cruiser, [[ARA General Belgrano|''General Belgrano'']]. Three years later a civil servant, [[Clive Ponting]], leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament ([[Tam Dalyell]]) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the [[Official Secrets Act 1911]].<ref>Martin Rosenbaum [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13430012 "Clive Ponting case: Where is the investigators' report?"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504181302/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13430012 |date=May 4, 2016}} ''[[BBC News]]''. 18 May 2011. Retrieved on 13 June 2013.</ref> The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting, as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence was that it was in the [[public interest]] that the information be made available. The judge, Sir [[Anthony McCowan]], "indicated that the jury should convict him",<ref name="BBC-TSOSA">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/216868.stm|title=Troubled history of Official Secrets Act|publisher=[[BBC]]|date=18 November 1998|accessdate=8 June 2015|quote=It was hailed as a victory for the jury system. The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him.}}</ref> and had ruled that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is".<ref>{{Cite news |title=Clodagh Hartley, chequebooks ... and a Clive Ponting moment |last=Preston |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Preston|newspaper=The Observer |date=30 November 2014 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/30/clodagh-hartley-chequebooks-clive-ponting-sun-whitehall-editor}}</ref> The jury acquitted him instead, much to the consternation of the government. In 2001, two people were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage to a Trident submarine in a Barrow-in-Furness shipyard. Though the two admitted their intention to trash the submarine, the two said they were planning to do so due to nuclear bombs being immoral and illegal. The judge told the juries that such ideals were not a defence against the charge. The jury brought a verdict of not guilty on these two anti-nuclear protesters.<ref>{{cite news |last=Berlins |first=Marcel |date=22 January 2001 |title=Perverting the course of justice? |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/22/law.jurytrials |access-date=30 June 2022}}</ref>

In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation [[Extinction Rebellion]] were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company [[Royal Dutch Shell]]. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted.<ref>[[Press Association]], [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/23/jury-acquits-extinction-rebellion-protesters-despite-no-defence-in-law Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite 'no defence in law'], ''[[The Guardian]]'', 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021.</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979 Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction], BBC News, 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021</ref> In 2023, Insulate Britain members Giovanna Lewis and Amy Pritchard were jailed for seven weeks after defying the judge's ban on informing the jury of the reasons for their actions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Insulate Britain activists jailed for seven weeks |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/activists-jailed-for-seven-weeks-for-defying-ban-on-mentioning-climate-crisis/ |access-date=2023-08-02 |website=openDemocracy |language=en}}</ref> In charging them with contempt, the judge referred to an earlier case where another environmental activist was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for the same reason.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gayle |first=Damien |date=2023-02-07 |title=Insulate Britain activist jailed for eight weeks for contempt of court |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/07/insulate-britain-activist-david-nixon-jailed-for-eight-weeks-for-contempt-of-court |access-date=2023-08-02 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Following juries acquitting activists, dozens of people have been threatened with arrest for displaying signs that remind jurors of their right to make decisions based on conscience.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-17 |title=Breaking: Dozens more people risk prison for literally upholding the law – Just Stop Oil |url=https://juststopoil.org/2023/07/17/breaking-dozens-more-people-risk-prison-for-literally-upholding-the-law/ |access-date=2023-08-02 |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Press |first=Insulate Britain |date=2023-05-15 |title=BREAKING: HIGH NOON AT CROWN COURT AS 24 PEOPLE INCLUDING LAWYERS, MEDICS AND QUAKERS DEFY JUDGE WHO JAILED DEFENDANTS FOR SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS |url=http://insulatebritain.com/2023/05/15/breaking-high-noon-at-crown-court/ |access-date=2023-08-02 |website=Insulate Britain |language=en-GB}}</ref> In 2024, a motion brought by government lawyers to prosecute the activist Trudi Warner for holding a placard stating the right to jury nullification was thrown out by a High Court judge on the basis that there was a well-established principle in law of jury equity and Warner had not broken any law.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Laville |first=Sandra |date=2024-04-22 |title=Judge throws out case against UK climate activist who held sign on jurors' rights |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/judge-throws-out-case-against-uk-climate-activist-trudi-warner-sign-jurors-rights |access-date=2024-04-22 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04-22 |title=Legal action cannot be taken against protester for contempt, High Court rules |url=https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/24269325.legal-action-cannot-taken-protester-contempt-high-court-rules/ |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=Bradford Telegraph and Argus |language=en}}</ref> Warner's placard had directly referenced the wording on the plaque inside the Old Bailey.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Bianca |date=2024-04-22 |title=Judge dismisses case against activist who held up placard on jurors' rights |url=https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judge-dismisses-case-against-activist-who-held-up-placard-on-jurors-rights/5119447.article |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=Law Gazette |language=en}}</ref>