The Sycamore Gap: justice but no answers
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
In the end, the jury at Newcastle Crown Court reached a unanimous verdict, said Jan Moir in The Mail on Sunday. Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, were found guilty of criminal damage – for cutting down the Sycamore Gap tree next to Hadrian's Wall.
The evidence was certainly damning. Graham's car and phone had been geolocated close to the Sycamore Gap on 27 September 2023, the stormy night when the tree was cut down; on both their phones was a video, dating from that very night, of a large tree being chainsawed. The pair, the jury heard, had discussed the story triumphantly by text the following day. But they later fell out, and Graham reported Carruthers to the police, suggesting that his friend had taken his car and phone to do the deed; Carruthers denied everything.
All in all, it was clear justice had been done. But questions remained. The "two hobbity men from deepest Cumbria" were led out of court without revealing one crucial issue: "why the hell they did it in the first place".
The prosecution had its theories, said the Daily Mirror. It seems Carruthers was obsessed with the tree, and wanted a "trophy" to mark the birth of his daughter. "As their risible fabrications in court made clear, neither are the brightest of men," said The Times. But it seems they thought cutting it down would be "a bit of a laugh": so they destroyed something in three minutes that had taken more than a century to grow.
Well, I think the furore is absurd, said Melanie Reid in The Observer. You'd think it was "murder", from the way everyone has carried on. But the sycamore was, as Carruthers plaintively told the jury, "just a tree". No one was hurt. Now these two men – poor, uneducated, from one of the most deprived areas of the UK – face sentences of up to ten years in prison.
Sure, it was "only" a tree, said Matthew Syed in The Sunday Times. But it "had stood for 150 years or more. It was gazed at by people in the reign of Queen Victoria." Hadrian's Wall, which framed it, has been there for 1,900 years. To look at it was not just to take in a beautiful view but to be connected to other people and other times, in "a tapestry of shared experience". I'm not surprised at the "outpouring of grief".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against US gun makers over cartel violence
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday in favor of U.S. gun manufacturers and blocked a liability lawsuit brought by the government of Mexico, which sought to hold the companies accountable for the trafficking of their weapons south of the border to fuel violence by the cartels. The government argued in its historic lawsuit that American firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta and Colt, were "aiding and abetting" the illicit flow of weapons across the border. Mexico sought $10 billion in damages, court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court likely to shoot down Mexico's $10B lawsuit against US gun makers Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion that federal law grants broad immunity to U.S. gun companies and unquestionably protects them from Mexico's claims. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," Kagan wrote. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 bars lawsuits against any gun manufacturer over the illegal acts of a person using one of a manufacturer's guns. But it does create an exception for claims involving a gun company's alleged knowing violation of rules governing the sale and marketing of firearms. Mexico argues that its lawsuit fell under the exception and was seeking $10 billion in damages and court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court battle spotlights guns trafficked from US into Mexico "Mexico has not met that bar," Kagan wrote for the court. "Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of 'conscious . . . and culpable participation in another's wrongdoing' needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge." "When a company merely knows that some bad actors are taking advantage of its products for criminal purposes, it does not aid and abet. And that is so even if the company could adopt measures to reduce their users' downstream crimes," Kagan concluded. The decision is the first time the high court has weighed in on the sweeping gunmaker immunity that Congress enacted aimed at protecting the industry. Mexico has only one gun store, but is awash in millions of American-made weapons, most funneled into the country by straw purchasers in the U.S. By one estimate, at least 200,000 guns flow south of the border each year. "Today's decision will end Mexico's lawsuit against the gun industry, but it does not affect our ability and resolve to hold those who break the law accountable," said David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at GIFFORDS Law Center. "All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice." Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, said that they are "disappointed" with the Supreme Court's decision. "The Mexican Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect Mexicans and to stop the crime gun pipeline," Olabuenaga said in a statement. Jonathan Lowey, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and backer of the Mexico case, said the decision is "the clearest evidence yet that the gun industry's special interest get-out-court-free card must be revoked." "The Court made clear that the door to accountability for the gun industry is not shut, and we look forward to working with Mexico further to stop the crime gun pipeline that makes Mexicans and Americans less safe," Lowey said in a statement.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
On a big decision day, the Supreme Court sent a message about unity
Supreme Court justices sent a message to the American public on Thursday: We're not as divided as you think. Of the six rulings that were released, four were unanimous, including the opinions in high-profile battles over reverse discrimination and faith-based tax breaks. Another decision was nearly unanimous, with just one justice peeling away on one part of the ruling. And the sixth decision had just one dissent, meaning that nearly all of the justices agreed with the plan to dismiss the case as 'improvidently granted.' Here's an overview of the six rulings released on Thursday — and a look at what's still to come from the Supreme Court in June. Ruling: Unanimous In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the court was considering whether members of a majority group, such as straight, white males, should have to meet a higher burden of proof in order to make an employment discrimination claim. The case was brought by Marlean Ames, a straight, white woman, who accused her former employer of privileging LGBTQ employees during the promotion process. Ames lost in front of lower courts, but the Supreme Court overturned those decisions on Thursday. The justices unanimously said that members of majority groups should not have to meet a higher burden of proof and sent Ames' case back to the lower courts for reconsideration. The question in this case is whether ... a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' We hold that this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether the Mexican government could sue seven gun manufacturers based in the U.S. over their role in unlawful gun sales in Mexico. The Supreme Court unanimously said on Thursday that the Mexican government's lawsuit cannot move forward 'because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.' 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales 'as in something that (they) wish to bring about,'' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment's religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits. The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn't qualify for the religious exemption to the state's unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported. State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits' work did not serve 'primarily religious purposes.' In Thursday's unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. Ruling: Unanimous In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, the justices were considering under what circumstances federal courts in the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over foreign states. The case stemmed from a conflict between a company that's active in the U.S. and a corporation owned by India. The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal courts did have jurisdiction over India in this dispute and reversed a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Ruling: Nearly unanimous, with one justice taking issue with one part of the majority opinion. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, the court was considering whether victims of terrorist attacks or their surviving family members could reopen their case against a bank that had allegedly aided and abetted terrorists by providing financial services. The Supreme Court ruled that the people who brought the case did not meet the high standard that must be cleared to reopen the case. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, was nearly unanimous. Eight of the justices, including Thomas, joined it in full, but Jackson only joined it in part. Ruling: Dismissed as improvidently granted, with one justice dissenting to the dismissal In Lab Corp v. Davis, the justices were considering whether a federal court can certify a class action suit if some of the parties in the suit lack legal standing. A majority of the justices decided to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, meaning that they felt the court should never have agreed to weigh in. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented to that decision, writing that he felt it was possible — and would be valuable — to rule on the case. The Supreme Court will release around two dozen more rulings throughout the month of June as it works to wrap up its 2024-25 term by early July. The justices have yet to announce their decision in four of the five cases that the Deseret News highlighted in its list of this term's highest profile battles. The Supreme Court's next decision day has not yet been announced, but it will likely be Thursday, June 12.
