Day 12: Tues 31st January
Day 12: Tues 31st January
10.55. Lawson-Rogers resumes his closing speech on behalf of Mark, returning to the European Convention and its impact on British law.
He tells the jury that Article 10.2 allows controls on free speech, but makes it clear they must be as limited as possible. He reads two passages from case law, as "I can't improve on them".
I don't have time to note the precise details, but the gist of the judgements is that "Freedom of speech includes opinions that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population, such are the demands of that pluralism and tolerance without which there is no democratic society."
Free speech includes not just bland comments which everyone agrees with, but also "the irritating, the heretical, the provocative......freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having ...... from the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers, we have too many examples of the abuse of power of the State." This judgement went on to acknowledge the debt our legal system and free society still owes to the jury which refused to convict William Penn, despite enormous pressures, in 1670, "for preaching ideas which offended against state orthodoxy."
He goes on to rubbish the prosecution claim that this is not about the BNP. "If that was the case, why did the prosecution feel the need to draw attention to the party's policies on admission of immigrants and the deportation of criminals?"
State broadcaster’s bias
The whole case, he says, only arose because the BBC - motivated by political bias - instigated undercover activity. The police didn't do this for the good reason that they knew there was nothing to be investigated. It was only after the BBC broadcast edited extracts that
The case comes under the Public Order Act, a law to control public order, but the prosecution has admitted there were no public order problems, and no long term affects either. "The fact there was no violence is very relevant to your decision." The lack of any problems, he continues, also calls into question the propriety of even bringing the prosecution. The police would know that no-one would be present at those meetings who might have been offended.
The purpose of Mark's speeches is clear when you read them - not to stir up hatred or encourage violence, but to encourage political, legal activity."
"Is he being prosecuted because he dared to speak the name of racial tensions, you may think." The prosecution admit there are problems, and concede it is justified to discuss them, "but are they only paying lip service to this idea?"
He goes on to put it all in its proper perspective: "The views expressed are no different to those expressed in pubs and clubs up and down the country."
He says how Enoch Powell, and the two of us, are 'answered' when we warn of potential problems by being castigated as 'racists'. He lists some of the tensions and problems caused by mass immigration and asylum. "These are facts, not speculation." Some of the jury bundle was intended to prove that Mark was "talking about matters of immense public concern that have to be addressed."
He puts the boot into Tony Blair by pointing out he went to war on
The BNP is entitled to talk about these issues. Whether or not you like Mark's words or style is beside the point.
Mark's targets are the "ineffectual politicians who have allowed these problems to come about" and the journalists who do not report what is going on properly.
The prosecution started by telling you to look at the speeches "in their totality", but then went on to "cherry pick" the material.
He accepts that on odd occasions Mark exaggerated "If that is a crime what politician is innocent?" he asks. In any case, any exaggeration merely goes to strengthen his efforts to get people to do things politically; it is no evidence whatsoever of any intention to incite hatred.
"Mr Collett vehemently denies being a racist, but even if he was, being a racist is not yet a crime in
L-R’s presentation is superb. The jury appear to be paying close attention. His tone rises and dips, he pauses for effect, then presses on. No-one is going to sleep now.
Suppose Mark had wanted to incite hatred, which he didn't. "There is a wealth of words and expressions" which exist out there which he could have and would have used if it was his intention to incite hatred. And if it was his intention to incite racial hatred, he clearly failed, didn't he? He didn't know he was being recorded and he was speaking to a sympathetic audience. He had no reason to restrain himself.
As Mr Griffin said in his evidence, if there were to be any racial violence, who would get the blame? The BNP. How would that help their cause? That's why their meetings are held privately, in fact in secret, in order to avoid the possibility of opponents coming and causing violence.
Having dealt with the absurd idea that the intention was to incite racial hatred, he turns to the question of 'likely under all the circumstances" to stir up racial hatred. You need to look at the whole speech, he says, at the effectively private nature of the meetings.
Audience of four million
Referring to the fact that the most un-PC bits of the speeches were shown on national TV, he asks a very pertinent question: "How could you find that racial hatred was likely to be stirred up when the whole thing has been tested on four million people and there is no evidence that any hatred was stirred up? There is not a shred of evidence that, in those tiny meetings, any hatred was likely to be stirred up".
The fact that there was no one there to be "threatened, abused or insulted" may assist them, but even ignoring that they have to look at the intentions and circumstances.
He moves on to examine the phrase 'racial hatred'. Hatred, he points out, is "strong stuff", "active dislike", the dictionary says. And it must be hatred of a racial group, not of politicians, and not of asylum seekers, who come from various races. When Mark said he didn't hate Asians and asylum seekers, but did hate the white liberals who brought them here, this would be likely to dampen down any hatred that a member of the audience might feel towards those groups.
"This case should never have come to criminal proceedings, and it never would have but for the interference of politically correct journalists." This is not a 'borderline case'.
Mark does not have to prove his innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove his guilt. Look at the evidence and decide.
A 'not guilty' verdict is not a kind of vote for, or vindication of, the BNP. That is not what this case is about; it is about freedom of speech in our society. He asks them to have the courage to find the case 'not proved'.
He finishes at 11.41 and Mr King rises to his feet.
Basis of democracy
He starts by saying that, as an advocate, one has no choice but to represent a client, regardless of what they say or do. His personal views, and theirs are irrelevant.
“But we are proud to live in a democratic society.” There are 2 key factors in a democratic society. First, we believe in the ballot box, not the bomb as the way of resolving problems and issues. Second, we believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not a mantra, not just words, it is fundamental to a democratic society. The right to speak not just what is attractive but also what is unattractive.
He says his learned friend Mr Lawson-Rogers has 'stolen all the best lines' but he repeats the expression of the court which encapsulates the position
A Lord Justice on Appeal said that freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having ... tolerance is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind …. from the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers, etc, etc. Good stuff – and current English case law material.
The Crown admit it's an attack on freedom of speech but claim it's justified. We say it is not on the facts of the case.
Mr Griffin is on trial for just two speeches, not for any particular words within them. Each speech must be taken as a whole. This is why we say to you it's a wholly unjustified prosecution. The starting point is that the BNP is a legal political entity. It has the right in a democratic society to put forward ideas and policies which some might find uncomfortable or even offensive.
In each speech Mr Griffin firstly is advocating the ballot box and not the bomb or the bullet, and secondly was raising issues of genuine public interest to a private audience who he believed, you might think rightly, felt left out of the political process and who he was inviting to get back involved in that political process.
Wholly unfair to over-analyse the speeches by picking out lines. Must look at overall impact.
And remember context of each speech - that of a politician speaking to a politically committed audience, there to get a political message and go out to work in a political way. Nobody is going to listen to every line, every nuance. It would be wholly unfair to forget that fact.
'Threatening' has disappeared, and rightly so. Look at insulting or abusive words intended or likely to incite hatred. The prosecution says I am disguising my true intention "what a basis to try to prove an intention!"
The message from the law cases of the importance of freedom of speech is that any restriction on it must be narrowly interpreted.
At one point is his evidence, Mr Griffin was driven to say "I was giving a political speech, not a theological lecture." He feels the same way, but wants to read another legal judgement
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society... extended not only to information and ideas favourably received but also to those that offend shock or disturb.”
Hence any such restrictions should be narrowly interpreted, so cases should only come to court if it’s really clear. "If there's a debate about it - what does this line mean, what does that line mean - the case clearly isn't clear. It just isn't made out at all.
He looks at how 'cherry picking can go horribly wrong'. “One particular one stuck in my mind: The Crown extracted a line from one of Mr Griffin’s speeches in which he spoke of 'the evil which these people have done to this country.’ Look to divider 4. He too thought this was about ethnic minorities, but look at the page. He reads the passage, and it is clear that "these people" are the politicians, particularly the Labour party. Looking at the previous page, where I attack Jack Straw and the Labour party, it is absolutely clear what I meant.
It is part of my stance, he continues, to say that a multi-cultural society hasn't worked. “You and I may disagree, but that isn't the point. The real point is that it is open to any politician or member of the public to make that point.”
To want to go back to 'the old days' is a sensitive issue, and if raised by a politician he is immediately accused of the sort of offence with which Mr Griffin is accused. To advocate restrictions on immigration etc is not to want to incite hatred. It is a legitimate point of view. And when the Crown start ticking off the number of times Mr Griffin uses the word' white' I submit it is wholly unfair. It is a legitimate topic of debate and we do no service to say that those who raise it do so at risk of prosecution.
It is especially dangerous to jump and tick these issues as criminal offences, because it could lead to these problems ending in violence instead of political debate.
Raising racial issues in a speech does not mean you are seeking to incite racial hatred, or even that it is likely to be stirred up. Far from it, raising it in political debate is a good way of preventing that happening.
No issue as to my good faith, my genuine belief. The Crown didn't do anything to suggest otherwise in cross-examination, although they did in Mr Jameson’s closing speech. But in fact no evidence laid before you AT ALL to contradict what Mr. Griffin said, or the evidence he presented.
Mr Griffin was roundly criticised for relying on second or third hand information - it went through my head, he tells the jury, that the government of the day justified going to a war on third hand information.” I don't stand here to attack anyone over the war in
Crown used closing speech to question the genuine nature of my beliefs on Islam, but they didn't do this in cross-exam. In fact, at that point, Mr Jameson accepted "I don't dispute the genuine nature of your feelings about Islam."
Prosecution twisted words
He kicks Jameson again with another example of how he twisted my words to say things I didn't:
Jameson went to end of speech where I say I'd get seven years and said this was an admission from me that I was breaking the law against incitement to racial hatred. He didn't remind you of the way I used the same line at the start of the speech. "The second (reason) is, their good book tells them it's acceptable. Now that sentence could get me 7 years in prison." This cannot be capable of any other interpretation. We know it is a reference to the Koran. It is patently clear that I have a belief that attacking a religion, not a race, could land him with a prosecution. But the Crown did not see fit to remind you of it.
Also triggers another big issue, Crown can't gainsay that I was raising issues of the Islamic faith on behaviour. Not a criminal offence, but then Crown say it's a disguise. We submit there is no basis for this, for it is clear from his evidence that he vehemently believes in the dangers in the Islamic faith.
Moves to another example, how Crown chose to ignore the context: Having spoken about the canvassing of different people, “canvass Sikhs, they may well vote for us …. it's not a racial thing in a town like this, it's a cultural religious thing."
You couldn't have a clearer statement of what this is all about, he tells the jury.
Second speech, at Morley. I talk about what might happen in the future. He repeats my uncanny prediction of who would carry out the 7/7 (and also the 21/7) bombings. The Crown make no criticism of this. But Mr King suggests that had I been put on trial before 7/7, I would have been roundly criticised for this prediction, they'd have said my intention was to incite racial hatred. It wasn't then, I was trying to make a sensitive point about a real problem.
Hindsight can help. When you are assessing intent or likelihood, it is not unfair when there has been a huge passage of time, to see what has happened. We know precisely what happened as a result of these speeches in terms of their impact on audiences who heard from them - and the answer is absolutely nothing. A
This is admitted by the Crown. You may feel that is a very good piece of evidence, for you can bet your bottom dollar that had there been any evidence of people going out and committing offences after hearing these speeches, we would certainly have heard all about it.
Not disputed that there is an overlap between such meetings. Heard about the speech I made in
Suggests what would be a fair interpretation of each of these two speeches:
Keighley. Not in doubt that I speak from very few notes, spontaneous, keeping ear to concerns of audience. No doubt that the concern of Keighley audience was the grooming of white girls for sex, committed by Asians. Very fact of raising it raises problem that aim is to incite hatred. Very unfair, because it is a matter of genuine concern and debated in pubs and homes. For politicians to ignore it risks alienating people from the political process.
In context of that issue Mr Griffin not only raised the issue but also put forward a bona fide, honest view as to what had caused it. We may not like his analysis, but it's honest. There is criticism of Islam and of the multi-cult society. There is clear concern for the way the white working class concerns are ignored. All in context of motivating audience not to go out and commit violence or to be offensive, but to work for a political party.
Look at the framework of the speech. The grooming issue is raised, then the Islam issue, then the failure of the Establishment and Muslim community to do enough to prevent the problem, then the problem of the way Keighley is increasingly less white. Sensitive issues here, the statistics that we could be a minority in our own country in just a few decades is a legitimate point for discussion. It may be unpalatable to discuss, but Mr Griffin has the right to discuss it, especially with a group of people who are themselves worried about it. But aim is to ensure those concerns are channelled into political outlet.
I was talking about building a political movement ... ordinary people at grass roots level. This is a political speech, they inevitably include hyperbole, politicians live on it. You don't damn a man for hyperbole, it's the message that counts.
Then the audience gets a history lesson, the history of how people in Keighley stood up against the then Establishment. No apology for my saying 'mongrelising us out of existence' - we may find it offensive, but it's a way of expressing the view of those who oppose the multi-cult society.
Talking about feelings of the white community doesn't mean you are saying going out and hate other communities. Such a false leap.
If I wanted to incite hatred, I would surely have used very different language, and done it. But I am talking about the need to change political masters, on the need to canvass. Eye-opener when talking about canvassing that I say knock on Mr. Singh's door.
I'm not saying go out and fight them, spit on them in the street, etc, I'm saying get out and be involved in the political process. If I was winding people up on a soap box in a racially mixed area that might well break the law, but this is simply not the case.
If the BBC were genuinely concerned that criminal offences had been committed, why didn't they just give the tapes to the police, instead of broadcasting extracts.
Read as a whole, the first speech "doesn't begin to get past first base" in terms of breaking any law. The law was not aimed at this kind of speech.
He then moves to the Morley speech.
The purpose of the speech is to raise a genuine concern, with a disaffected white working class audience, about the way in which racist attacks on white people are played down by the media. You may agree or disagree with that, but it is a legitimate matter for concern. The Met Police Commissioner has just been in the news for saying the exact opposite, again one can agree or disagree with him, but it's a legitimate issue.
Mr. Griffin roundly attacked for going into the details. But unless you go into the detail and go into the attacks it is impossible to get over the point about how unfair the media bias really is. Second point is that it is a political speech and you can't damn a man for trying to keep the audience's attention.
Crown says this isn't a speech about Muslims. Agree, and Mr Griffin is open about that, it was a speech about the way the media cover racist attacks. He is attacked over the sources of his information, but not a scrap of evidence has been presented to show they were wrong.
Spontaneous speech, not designed for line-by-line analysis. Fair interpretation that it is about a real issue, take it as a whole. Much of speech addresses other issues: Gerrymandering; the political drift towards effectively a one-party state, policies about the EU and capital punishment.
Closing passages show clearly the aim of the speech: To give the audience a peaceful political outlet for their concerns. I warned about 7/7, and warn how the media unfairness is creating hatred, and that a backlash will come.
But if the BNP is allowed to organise, the backlash can be political, and lead to a debate about how to reverse the multi-cultural experiment. That sums up the aim of the whole speech. Are we going to damn him for talking about real problems and saying that we need political solutions to them?
We are instinctively uncomfortable with this prosecution. It is designed to silence people. Thanks jury for listening carefully and asks them to consider all the matters fairly.
This has taken us perfectly to lunch.
We return at and the judge starts to address the jury at 2.04.
He explains that he will give the directions as to how the law applies in this case, and says they must follow his directions. But it is for them to decide the verdict by looking at the defendants, and the limited number of witnesses. In particular they must judge Mr Collett's and Mr Griffin's evidence, fairly. They can come to commonsense conclusions, but mustn't speculate beyond what they've seen and heard. Pay attention to the submissions of the counsel who spoke for the prosecution (he doesn't say 'Crown' all the time) and for the two defendants.
If in the course of summing up the case I appear to emphasise a particular part of the evidence, don't adopt it because of what I saw. Give regard to any piece of evidence which I don't deal with but which you think is important. When it comes to the facts it is your judgement alone that matters.
The prosecution bring the case, they have to prove it. The defendant does NOT have to prove his innocence. How do they do that? By making you sure about it. Underline that word in your mind, if you are not sure your verdict must be one of 'not guilty'.
I still can't make out My Lord's accent. Educated, upper class, but there's a hint of something from
What is said in relation to one count is not related to the other, except where we shared a platform and | applauded what Mark said.
Each count is dual. Odd number ones contrary to S.18a even ones to S.18.i.b
Two defendants, each charged with separate counts. Each defendant and each count must be approached separately.
The jury must look at the whole speech in each case. The Crown has said it is fair to look at details within the speech and use them to draw inferences as to our intentions and the likely impact of the speeches.
The first element of each charge is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant used 'abusive or insulting' words or behaviour. The word 'threatening' can be crossed out in each case.
Give the words their ordinary English usage as you understand them. Do not strain those meanings to fit the words. They do not have to be addressed at anyone in the audience. But under offences requiring 'intent' it is not necessary to prove that the words were abusive or insulting, it is the intention to incite hatred which must be proved. But under 'likelihood', the prosecution must prove not only that the words were abusive and insulting, but also that we intended them to be so or was aware they might be intended to be so.
The prosecution must prove in any case under 18.i.a that the defendant intended to stir up racial hatred. This is defined in the statute: Hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality including citizenship or ethnic or national origins. What is meant by 'stir up racial hatred'. Not merely creating it, also inflaming it if it is already there. Does not require the creation of disorder or violence.
The hatred has to be racial, the stirring up of religious hatred is not unlawful. Could not be convicted of intent to stir up hatred against Islam.
How do you decide a man's intention? Judge it by looking at was said and the circumstances in which it was said. If guilty of intentionally stirring up hatred, there is no need to consider that 18.i.b alternative. If not guilty on first count, they must look at the 'likely' charge, and look at the circumstances of the speeches on the evenings in question. The Crown has to prove racial hatred was likely to be stirred up, not merely possible. Must be sure that this is the case, if unsure you should find him not guilty.
Now, I have some legal training and am familiar with this law, but I'm finding the details of the slightly different position re all these different subsections hard going (our lawyers later say they felt the same!). Some members of the jury at least will be slightly lost by now. The judge realises this as I speak and reiterates the position. A wise and sensitive owl.
Defendants declined to answer any questions in police interview. Directs the jury that they must not infer any element of guilt from this silence.
Having dealt with the matters of law he says he will turn to the facts.
Focus on court activity
General points: Case deals with alleged commission of crime. Brought after police investigation and tried before representative jury. This case is not about their political beliefs. It is not about whether assertions about Islam are right or wrong. It is about our intent and manner. This is a classical jury case where the good judgement of the jury is required. Reflect the views of society as it is in this country. When you came into witness box you took a solemn oath on your holy book to put to one side your preconceived opinions and consider the evidence, and only the evidence you have seen or heard.
If you have seen media reports, ignore them. Everything of relevance to your considerations has occurred in this court, and nowhere else.
Bear in mind we live in democratic society that jealously protects the rights of its citizens to free speech. Article 10 part of English law. but along with rights come commensurate duties. Freedom of expression can be curtailed in limited circumstances, where it is necessary. May be done in interests of national security, territorial integrity, prevention of public disorder and crime, protection of rights of others, protection of independence of the judiciary.
Freedom of speech not limited only to the acceptable and unpopular. Bear in mind what was said by defence.
One of exceptions to free speech is protection of rights of others - individuals have rights to live their normal lives, etc, or to legislate to prevent disorder or crime - this is what S.18 of Public Order Act is there for. Approach it with care, as it does infringe freedom of speech.
Avoid straining the words of the count to fit the contents of the speeches. This case is not against the British National Party or its beliefs. It is not directed against a legitimate political party. It is about alleged crime. This is not a Labour inspired prosecution, he says, the law passed in 1986 under Mrs. Thatcher. (This, of course, misses several points, not the least of which is that it doesn’t really matter who passed the law, what counts here is that a NuLab Attorney-General approved this prosecution, after the then NuLab Home Secretary announced his intention to destroy the BNP.
Turns to the facts and the evidence. It is not common for juries to be able to view the incidents that give rise to the allegations. In this case you have the entirety of the evidence. You will need to read and re-read the transcripts of the speeches. Bear in mind the evidence of each defendant. Bear in mind evidence they gave that these speeches were directed to converted audiences, with a view to encouraging political action. Weigh this evidence, and more, against the prosecution claims.
Prosecution called only one witness, Jason Gwynne. Reiterates what Gwynne told the court about how he was involved by Nick Lowles, then joined the party in
A statement from
Draws attention to my sole comment in interview "there's no hatred in this audience and no hatred from me". Then to Crown admission that this was made after hearing spontaneous applause from audience after I condemned the wicked murder of an elderly Asian man. "Mr. Griffin relies on this as demonstrating the attitude of his audience and, indeed, perhaps even more significant, his own attitude." (I hope the jury take particular note of that point).
Bear in mind that a total of five speeches by Mr. Griffin were recorded. The Crown admits that only two have led to charges. The defence asks you to draw the inference that the others contained nothing which could have led to charges.
It is nearly . The judge runs briefly through were and when each speech was made. Each speech must be considered in the round. What you must not do is simply cherry pick though of course you should look at individual passages. Equally, in looking at specific passages, don't just look at ones the Crown has used, look at those relied on by the defence about political work, electoral success and other policies. Consider the watering down effect of such passages on the other parts of the speech.
Consider what the defendants have said about their motivation to address genuine issues and to motivate political action. And what they have said about the audiences already agreeing with them. Remember that these are political speeches, and hyperbole is permitted, but not if it spills over into inciting hatred.
Each defendant has given you a folder containing materials which they say helped form their opinions. He skims briefly through what these are. He doesn't intend to go through them, "you can read them in detail when you retire".
Judge’s comments on media
Uses the Scottish press coverage of Kriss Donald's murder and local
I wish now that I'd pressed my defence team harder to include solid evidence from Google about the anti-white media bias in cases such as the murders of Stephen Lawrence and white victims. Try it for yourself, the contrast is staggering, especially when you realise that most of the tiny number of internet mentions about the likes of Sean Whyte are from local newspapers, the BNP or other nationalist websites, whereas the records for Stephen Lawrence, Anthony Walker and others are overwhelmingly from the BBC, national newspapers and government institutions. Another field in which, if we end up with a re-trial, we'll have to do a fair bit more.
Proposes to look at parts of each speech highlighted in evidence and remind them of what the defendants said about it.
I've been talking for an hour, he says. We need a ten minute break. During the break Lee Barnes flags up several areas in which he believes we already have grounds for appeal.
The jury files back in at 15.22 and are given a slightly amended, corrected, version of the indictments.
The judge reminds the jury of what Mark told us about himself. This is fairly summed up. This includes Mark's evidence about how far-left pressure makes our meetings effectively private, if not almost underground. His aim when speaking is to motivate members and supporters to get involved politically.
He goes through Mark's Reservoir Tavern speech, and looks at Mark's answers during cross-examination. This part of the summing up seems totally even-handed, but from the detail he is going into it looks as though this summing up will not be completed until tomorrow morning.
These summings up appear to be pretty much a summary of the speeches themselves, together with material brought out in cross-examination, which in many cases has already been covered in this blog, so I'm not going to repeat them again. Just a few key comments may be worth noting.
It is now and we're still only going through Mark's second speech. Fair again now, but heavy going.
It is interesting, I conclude to look at the face of the jury and to note just how homogeneous the native peoples of the
At the end of the second speech the judge again reiterates that it must be looked at in the whole. Do parts of it so colour the whole thing as to put it beyond the law?
Gulf of understanding
By 16.09 we're into Mark's speech in the Crossroads pub in Keighley. In this one, in my opinion, in trying to hold the attention of a rough and ready audience, Mark let some of his rhetoric go a bit downmarket. Even here, however, his crystal clear purpose was to grab them and persuade them that here is a party that understands how they think, and that they should get involved in constructive and peaceful political work under our banner. I think that here there is probably a genuine gulf of understanding between the sheltered, well-to-do world of barristers and judges, and the real lives of real people in the poor parts of multi-cultural
To think that a young middle class politician could go into such a place and stir up trouble is to misunderstand very badly the extent of commonsense and healthy cynicism about politicians that exists in such places. Such thinking is really nothing more than snobbery. The cloth-capped working classes live in ignorant bliss until we come along and stir them up to hate their charming neighbours. What nonsense. The reality is that there are growing frictions and hatreds in such places, and that our being there to act as a constitutional safety valve is the best chance our society has of these problems leading in due course to the most appalling communal violence.
Back to the judge: “Look at the speech like a cake. It contains flour, eggs, currants, butter and so on, but when you've made it you don't say, "'here's a block of flour, eggs, currants and butter', you say 'here's a cake'." But then he goes on to say they must also look at specific terminology. The law is difficult to assess, precisely because this is such a bad law.
It’s half-past four. Enough for the day. He says he expects to take another hour tomorrow morning and then to send the jury out.
Will that give them enough time to reach a verdict tomorrow? Only time will tell.