The acquittal of councillor Ricky Jones last week has sparked a flurry of speculation and misinformation. Here is an effort to shed a little light.
As ever, the standard disclaimer applies: this is an explanation; not a defence or a justification.
1. What is this all about?
Labour councillor Ricky Jones has been acquitted by a jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court following his trial for encouraging violent disorder. And the social media and political reaction has been ferocious, with Conservative and Reform politicians declaring the verdict to be evidence of “two-tier justice”, and drawing comparisons with other people who have been convicted of offences involving threats of violence.
2. Ricky Jones? Wasn’t this the guy recorded on video shouting about slitting people’s throats?
Yes, that’s him. On 7 August 2024, at the height of last summer’s disorder, Mr Jones, a Dartford councillor, attended a counter-protest outside an immigration centre in Walthamstow, having been specifically advised not to attend. He was recorded addressing a crowd of “tens of thousands” through a public address system, making reference to “disgusting Nazi fascists”, shouting: “We need to cut their throats and get rid of them all”, drawing his finger along his throat. The video clip found its way onto social media and attracted widespread attention, leading to Mr Jones’ suspension from the Labour Party and his prosecution.
3. And the jury decided that that wasn’t a crime?
Well, not quite. Juries – twelve randomly selected members of the public, drawn from the electoral register – are not allowed to give reasons for their verdicts (which, as longtime readers will know, is one of my bugbears). So all we know from the Not Guilty verdict is that the jury were not sure – “sure” is the modern reformulation of “beyond reasonable doubt” – that Jones was guilty of the offence that the prosecution had decided to charge.
4. What was he charged with?
Unhelpfully, there is a dearth of detailed contemporaneous reporting of the evidence called at the trial – see another of my bugbears, the decline of local court reporting. But piecing together what is out there, it appears that Jones was charged with encouraging violent disorder, contrary to section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
This legislation replaced the old common law offence of incitement. In its place are statutory offences of intentionally assisting or encouraging a criminal offence (section 44) and encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed (section 45). Section 45 looks like this:
The offence that the prosecution alleged had been encouraged was violent disorder. This is a public order offence, contrary to section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986, which is defined as follows:
Basically – if three or more people kick off, and others nearby are likely to be scared, you’ve got the makings of a violent disorder. We saw a lot of it charged last summer arising out of the “protests” outside hotels.
Putting that all together then, in order for a person to be guilty of encouraging violent disorder under s45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Prosecution have to prove the following:
- The person did an act
- The act was capable of encouraging the commission of violent disorder
- The person believed that violent disorder would be committed, and
- The person believed that his act would encourage the commission of violent disorder.
5. So why was Ricky Jones not guilty, when we can see his actions on the video clip?
Again, doing my lawyerly best to infer from the incomplete information available, I expect that the Prosecution had little difficulty persuading the jury that Ricky Jones’ actions were capable of encouraging violent disorder. The following excerpt from the BBC’s report is instructive:
However, as we can see from the checklist above, that is not the end of the story. The Prosecution also had to prove that Ricky Jones had the requisite state of mind (mens rea, for LLB students and/or Legally Blonde aficionados). And this, from the reports, appears to have been the focus of the Defence case.
Ricky Jones’ evidence to the jury was that he did not believe that violent disorder would be committed, and that nor he did believe that his actions and words would encourage violent disorder. The BBC reported:
Expert evidence was called – by both Prosecution and Defence – in relation to Mr Jones’ neurodivergence. This evidence was summarised (as is commonplace in criminal trials) in “agreed facts”, a document placed before the jury as a convenient way to deal with uncontentious evidence. Again, from the BBC’s report:
Mr Jones also called evidence from witnesses who were present at the rally, and who described the mood as otherwise “peaceful”.
6. So you’re saying he got away with it by playing the “neurodivergence card”?
No. The evidence of his neurodivergence – which was broadly agreed by the Prosecution and Defence experts – appears to have been put before the jury to explain why Mr Jones might have, in his own words, “come out with things I don’t always mean”, but this in itself is no defence. As the jury would have been directed, if they were sure that on this occasion Mr Jones had believed that his actions would have encouraged violent disorder, his neurodivergence would have been immaterial. This was simply one part of the evidential picture.
7. So the jury just accepted what Ricky Jones told them?
Again, we have no idea. A Not Guilty verdict traverses a wide range of possibilities, from the jury being completely sure of innocence to them being almost sure of guilt. The fact that the acquittal was quick – half an hour, reportedly – indicates that it didn’t take long for the twelve to reach an agreed position, but we don’t know any more than that.
What we do know is that the Prosecution did not accept what Ricky Jones told the jury. He was cross-examined by the highly experienced prosecuting barrister, and the jury will have been invited in the Prosecution closing speech to convict him. I imagine the video would have been the centrepiece: “The situation was a tinderbox, members of the jury. Those words and those actions in this context, to a crowd of thousands – the idea that Mr Jones did not believe that they would lead to violent disorder is ludicrous!” would be a boilerplate closing observation from a hack like me.
But the jury, having heard far more evidence than I have been able to review or include in this post, acquitted.
8. Was this a rogue jury, specially selected to ensure an acquittal?
No. In England & Wales, unlike in America, juries are completely random. The lawyers don’t get to haggle over the composition of juries. Nobody gets to object to a juror (unless there is a genuine conflict, such as a juror knowing somebody involved in the case). Twelve random members of the public, from all walks of life and all political backgrounds. That’s our system.
9. But how can Ricky Jones walk free when Lucy Connolly is in prison?
The facts of the Lucy Connolly case, for the uninitiated, were summarised by the Court of Appeal in this way:
As a preliminary disclaimer, I’ve said previously that, while legally a defensible and entirely predictable sentence, I personally don’t believe that Lucy Connolly should have been imprisoned. She received exactly the treatment that anybody else in her position would have – the “two-tier” myth is a conspiracy theory spread by those ignorant of the decades of legal precedent for the state slamming those involved with, even if only to encourage on social media, national-scale public disorder. But I don’t agree with that precedent. 31 months’ imprisonment is disproportionate to the harm caused and her culpability. She is an unpleasant racist, but not a danger to the public.
The comparison with Ricky Jones, however, is nonsensical. Connolly pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred, contrary to section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. She has never denied her guilt.
She belatedly tried to challenge the basis on which she was sentenced and gave evidence to the Court of Appeal, who did not believe her and rejected her appeal against her sentence. But, despite the desperation of her powerful supporters in the media to pretend otherwise, she has always accepted that she is guilty of inciting racial hatred. The elements of that offence (explained in the Court of Appeal judgment) have always been accepted by her. She has never denied having the necessary mens rea. It has never been suggested by her that she was forced to plead guilty. She has never applied to appeal against her conviction on the basis of incompetent advice, or undue pressure, or any of the other imaginary excuses that her cheerleaders are so anxious to invent.
Nor, it appears, would she have ever had a runnable defence. An offence under s19 is committed where a person publishes material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and where either they intend to stir up racial hatred or having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. There is no requirement that the Prosecution prove any specific intention or belief that violence will result as a consequence. To that extent, it is an easier offence for the Prosecution to prove than encouraging violent disorder. (Although the Court of Appeal found, having heard live evidence from Connolly, that she admitted that she had intended for serious violence to follow her post. Not relevant to her guilt, but relevant to how she was sentenced.)
By contrast, Ricky Jones has never admitted the offence with which he was charged. And so he was tried, by a jury. Just as Connolly would have been had she not chosen, voluntarily, to plead guilty.
10. But why were Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones not charged with the same offence?
They could have been. Lucy Connolly could have been charged with encouraging violent disorder. And if she had, she may well too have denied it. And had a jury trial.
But because she had incited racial hatred – and there was abundant evidence that she was guilty – the Prosecution opted to charge that offence. It is a more serious offence carrying a greater maximum sentence, and as an informal rule of thumb, the Crown Prosecution Service will usually charge the most serious offence that it believes it can prove. Whereas there was no evidence that Ricky Jones said or did anything to incite racial hatred. So charging a section 19 offence was not an option.
11. So despite what we all saw on that video clip, Ricky Jones is not guilty of a crime?
He’s not guilty of encouraging violent disorder, according to the jury. There may well have been other, less serious offences, that might have been charged. The problem for the Prosecution is that almost all of them require proof of a state of mind that Jones would have denied, meaning they would have run up against the same or similar difficulties. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 – threatening words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, appears to be made out, but is triable only by magistrates and punishable only by a fine, and was likely deemed to be insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the alleged offending.
Interestingly, Ricky Jones was fortunate that his words were delivered orally, rather than tweeted or posted. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 criminalises messages of a “menacing character” sent over a public network (such as Twitter). It is difficult to see what defence he might have mounted had he tweeted, rather than shouted, his threatening words.
And, of course, had his words been intended to stir up racial hatred, or had they been likely to stir up racial hatred in the circumstances, he could have been charged with a similar offence to Connolly. But, threatening as his behaviour appeared to be, there was no evidence of racial hatred within the meaning of the legislation.
12. Why are you defending the verdict?
I’m not. I didn’t hear the evidence that the jury heard, I didn’t hear the arguments by the barristers and I haven’t seen the judge’s legal directions to the jury, so I have no idea whether the jury’s verdict was correct. It might have been entirely understandable. It might have been completely contrary to the weight of the evidence. I’ve had plenty of both kinds of verdicts in my own trials. I have no idea what happened in this one.
But here’s the thing: neither do the politicians and commentators railing against the verdict. They don’t have a clue. They weren’t there, they haven’t done the most basic research into the evidence or the law, and they don’t intend to. They are rage-farmers, determined to spin this high-profile case in whichever way best suits their agenda.
Don’t fall for it.
POSTSCRIPT
One facet of the “two-tier justice” conspiracy theory that is gaining popularity concentrates on the fact that Ricky Jones was granted bail pending trial. His position is contrasted by the conspiracy theorists to that of Lucy Connolly, who it is suggested was pressured to plead guilty by virtue of being remanded into custody.
Here, in this excellent thread posted earlier today, Matthew Scott (@barristerblog) explains why this claim is fallacious:
Thank you the clear and concise explanation.
Many thanks, great explainer
Great posting, and very educational about the contrasts between the two cases. Perhaps you should rework a slightly shortened version as a Guardian article, so it can reach a wider audience? (If they would accept an anonymous author, which I think they probably would). Anyway, I greatly enjoyed reading it, and the clarity with which you went through the different legal issues.
Great piece. I would argue that you cannot state that a jury’s verdict is either correct or incorrect. It is instead a fact. Of course juries will find defendants guilty of crimes they did not commit and innocent of ones they did, and they are only human. But they reach a verdict based on the evidence presented to them, the performance of the barristers, witnesses and judge, and the internal dynamics of the group of jurors. The jury’s role is just part of a larger process.
I am in no means an expert but have been called for jury service more times than most.
Most interesting, and enlightening, as always. Thank you.
Was this not (very likely from what we know) a case of over prosecution? Might a lesser, probably summary only public order charge not have been more proportionate, rather than the prosecution having wished upon itself additional evidential hoops to jump through?
I just want to take a moment to express my deep gratitude for the work you do on this blog. It’s such a necessary voice of pause and consideration in a landscape where those things are increasinly absent. Cheers!
The only comparison between Connolly’s case and Jones’s case is that both encouraged violence. One was punished; the other was not.
As counterintuitive as it might seem, misinformation does not only apply to the facts at issue, but also to the context in which those facts exist. I’m sure the law, as written and as intended, was expertly applied in both cases yet the disparity in outcome between the two is clear for all to see.
What is the law? It is the system of rules by which all members of a group agree to abide or face punishment by violence from the rest of the group. In this country that violence usually comes in the form of financial punishment or restriction of liberty in some way, up to and including imprisonment. The law is not a static top-down oppressive force, though it does take that form for the purposes of everyday enforcement on the streets and in the courts. The law should reflect the views of the people it governs; if it does not it becomes an oppressive force in essence not just in form.
Rage-farmers spinning these high-profile cases for their own agenda I agree. The question becomes: is there any other way forward or are we compelled to choose one of the options in front of us? When we sell the idea that everything is fine, that we should have no opinion but the one sanctioned by the court, that’s acceptable so long as things are actually fine. When we knowingly sell a false idea it can cause real harm to real people in very real ways. How sure are we that the people who support Connolly’s cause and the people who support Jones’s cause can peacefully coexist?
The only comparison between Connolly’s case and Jones’s case is that both encouraged violence. One was punished; the other was not. I have been advised by my legal team to make it clear that I am perhaps unintentionally telling an untruth here; only Connolly encouraged violence.
Thank you for this.
I wish all those who use differences in charging and sentencing as evidence of a “two tier” justice system would look a little deeper.