Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-guilty-prison-contempt-edl-old-bailey-protests-a8990256.html

Save to say that: (1) to anyone with even a perfunctory understanding of the law of contempt, this outcome was completely obvious and just a little too long coming; and (2) standing on the steps of the Court and announcing that he's been found guilty because of who he is rather than what he did, as alleged, would be yet another arguable contempt; I'm not going to comment on this verdict.

Hopefully, some of the trolls who had the temerity to attack my authoritative explanation of the legal principles involved when the disinformation about this trivial issue first surfaced will now choke on their own bile.

Have a nice day, everyone.

[Pies4shaw]

https://news.sky.com/story/i-do-love-my-job-parking-warden-puts-ticket-on-tommy-robinson-support-bus-11757680

[Pies4shaw]

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2019/07/tommy-robinsons-inevitable-conviction.html

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.indy100.com/article/tommy-robinson-parking-ticket-traffic-warden-video-viral-8991461

[Pies4shaw]

Here's the High Court's reasons for its judgment of 5 July 2019, handed down overnight:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ag-v-yaxley-lennon-jmt-190709.pdf

Some pertinent extracts follow, for those who do not wish to read the whole judgment.

The allegations are set out:

"In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the respondent’s conduct amounted to contempt of court in three different respects. First, the online publication involved a breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials. Secondly, the Attorney General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”. Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at Court, doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure."

The Attorney-General succeeded on all three bases (at paragraph 4).

The (largely undisputed) facts are set out from paragraphs 30 to 41.

Some of Tommy's evidence at this trial was rejected as "late and implausible".

Parts of the Attorney General's case were described by the Court as "beyond sensible dispute", their Honours concluding that "What the respondent published online plainly included material that amounted to reporting of the proceedings on indictment in the Akhtar case, and thus on any view infringed the RRO imposed by HHJ Marson. Indeed, it seems perfectly plain that the respondent was quite deliberately reporting on the proceedings which he had told his viewers were the subject of a reporting restriction." Thus the first ground was made out.

Next, "The dangers of using the un-moderated platforms of social media with the unparalleled speed and reach of such communications, are obvious. In this case, the respondent was engaged in the agitation of members of the public in respect of what he presented as a serious threat to society. His words had a clear tendency to encourage unlawful physical or verbal aggression towards identifiable targets. Harassment of the kind he was describing could not be justified. It is not necessary to assess the level of risk that such conduct would in fact be engaged in, beyond concluding that it was real and substantial. Furthermore, there was plainly a real risk that the defendants awaiting jury verdicts would see themselves as at risk, feel intimidated, and that this would have a significant adverse impact on their ability to participate in the closing stages of the trial. That in itself would represent a serious impediment to the course of justice." Thus, the second (strict liability ground) was made out.

Thirdly, "We would identify the following factors, considered cumulatively: (1) This was targeted behaviour, not incidental filming; (2) it was engaged in at what the defendant must have known to be a time of high anxiety for the defendants, when they were entitled to be presumed innocent; (3) knowing that the defendants did not wish to be approached; he had attempted it before, at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court; (4) when the respondent’s approach predictably elicited aggressive responses, he sought to exploit these against the defendants by implying that they were incriminating; (5) this was done very publicly, in a way that was likely to and did attract the attention of passers-by; (6) the filming was persistent, and involved a degree of following, whilst live streaming. The filming must of course be assessed in the context of the harassment with which we have dealt already. It is also necessary to have regard to the wider context. If the court were to condone the live broadcast of these defendants being aggressively confronted as they arrive at court, in conjunction with prejudicial commentary and exhortations to engage in harassment, it would pose a risk to the wider interests of the justice system." Thus the third ground was also made out.

It is now being reported that he has asked Trump for asylum.

[Pi]

OK. Ill bite
Let’s go through what happened.

The same court last year overturned Marsden’s ruling citing what amounts to a rush to judgement.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf

“A central criticism advanced on behalf of the appellant of the proceedings in Leeds is that the judge was wrong to proceed to deal with the contempt as quickly as he did. We consider that there is merit in this point”

“He (Marsden) appeared to give no consideration to the option of referring the matter to the Attorney General with a view to the instigation of contempt proceedings, nor to an adjournment to enable the matter to proceed at a more measured pace.”

It seems due process and impartiality matter, that’s what most lawyers tell me.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/01/tommy-robinson-freed-on-bail-after-court-quashes-conviction

(it’s the guardian, so it must be true)

The whole point here is its likely that the ‘Marsden process’ will not be repeated, any future similar cases are likely to end up with the defendant remanded in custody and the matter heard before the Attorney General (It’s just a better process, no conspiracy theories, no controversy needed, less attention attracted to the original case).

Had that been done in the first place this whole thing would not have dragged on for 13 months and given TR the global platform he now has; a pyrrhic victory at best and an example of the Streisand effect.

I imagine Marsden will be on ‘gardening leave’ at some point.

The third point of the conclusion may have a few journalist’s worried; specifically when considering the Pell trial. Its not the UK, but judicial systems in both countries are observing precedent.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47930273

Speaking of precedence, is this to be taken literally in every trial?

(4) when the respondent’s approach predictably elicited aggressive responses, he sought to exploit these against the defendants by implying that they were incriminating; (5) this was done very publicly, in a way that was likely to and did attract the attention of passers-by;

Media organisations and citizens do this routinely; gag order or no gag order.

[David]

[Pi]

^
That’s the whole point, In the past we have seen all sorts of media spectacles outside court rooms, most of which are completely unreasonable.

Rightly or wrongly suppression orders get ignored or circumvented all the time, in the age of the internet its practically impossible to police.

The question is what guidelines / rules should there be? And are any of them actually effective?

Is it reasonable for anyone to elicit provocation outside a court room under any circumstance; regardless of suppression order? Or is it OK as long as there is no suppression order.

[David]

Yes, I think I would be inclined to support any law that prevents defendants from being harassed / spat on / heckled / etc. (I'm not sure if anyone has ever thought to make this comparison, but we could do worse than mapping the abortion clinic restriction zone policy onto this, for essentially the same reasons). But it surely goes without saying that Robinson was doing a lot more than just that – he was both harassing and using that harassment as a key aspect of his prejudicial coverage, which increases the severity of what he's done significantly. If he'd merely been standing outside hassling defendants without a camera, he might have been done for disturbing the peace or some such (and deservedly so!), but I doubt he'd be anywhere near his current predicament, and that's probably as it should be.

[Pies4shaw]

Goodness me. Poor, benighted Tommy has been cruelly drowned in procedural fairness - to the tune of another 9 months. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48950672

[Pies4shaw]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/tommy-robinson-is-no-martyr-heres-how-to-stop-him-becoming-one/

[David]

Will only serve 10 weeks, if I understand correctly.

[Pies4shaw]

[stui magpie]

[Pies4shaw]

I have other, larger words, if you want.