Comment: Unusual but not unheard-of and juries must decide the facts

IT’S an unusual case. The man himself seemed to accept assault and breach of the peace without the aggravator.

That’s unusual but not unheard of and it is a matter for the jury if they convict anyone at all, even if the person admits to it.

There are difficulties in prosecuting these cases, but there are people convicted of crimes with sectarian aggravators every day in courts in Scotland.

Here, it would appear, the jury was left in reasonable doubt about the aggravator which was only spoken of by a single witness – that may emphasise the importance of corroboration generally.

What this points out to me is that it’s very difficult, unless you are in a court setting, in the jury box, to assess evidence in a case.

People will be surprised if they have seen the footage, or the reporting in the press, but all that does not allow people to understand the context.

TV is not always as conclusive as people like to think.

If he was convicted of (a religious aggravator) he would have been branded and the jury might have thought that was not their view of this man and his actions.

l John Scott QC is a leading human rights lawyer.