Can We Now Discuss This Case?

[anotheoldgit]

ABSpareEditor

I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.

[Barmaid]

Talbot, CoC is not dealt with in the same way as other offences. The simple reason being that the offending behaviour has the potential to undermine another case. It is dealt with differently. The Criminal Procedure Rules expressly provide for this. The trial judge will deal with it ON THE DAY.

[Mamyalynne]

I think you'd have to read each case to see if any were similar - I'd ask BM to read them all but I can't afford the fees.

[Barmaid]

I havent read all 770! Because I cant be bothered.

But in a case which I know to be reported in there, the chap was lifted, taken to the High Court some 90 miles away and potted for several weeks. All within a day.

[-Talbot-]

Well, thank you, sp for not pretending it was the norm as we know it.

[jackthehat]

But what if it *is*?

As Barmaid describes, this is not an unusual occurence.

[Gromit]

Talbot,
Last year Robinson was convicted of Contempt of Court.
The Judge was very clear in her comments. He admitted the offence and the Judge kindly suspended his sentence.
A year later he repeats the same offence in very similar circumstances. Again he pleads guilty. As it is a second offence, this different Judge is not so charitable and sends him down.

Nothing stinks about the case. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was under a suspended sentence.

[-Talbot-]

What the police lying to your lawyer saying we are releasing him or the duty lawyer (whatever they call them)telling you to plead guilty because if you do the judge will release you.
That is the rumour, we will soon know if that is true.

[Bazile]

I wonder if he was planning any trips to the USA

[jackthehat]

///That is the rumour.......///

And if it turns out to be just that?

[Barmaid]

He was represented by Counsel (experienced Counsel at that) and not by duty.

[youngmafbog]

"What lies do you think the Police told? "

Just in case you have missed the many news stories of late Plod have been caught lying/hiding evidence from defence Solicitors.

So it does happen and Plod only have themselves to blame when people become suspicious when they dont.

There is something a bit odd on this case but to be honest he bought it on himself and jail was always going to happen one way or another.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Nothing stinks about the case//

The "stinky" charge could come from two observations: first the (some might think exceptional) assiduousness with which the police have pursued Robinson ever since his EDL days, and secondly the imposition of reporting restrictions on Muslim gang rape cases.

An easy inference from the first is that there is a political[i will to silence Robinson, and, from the second, that there is a [i]political] will to hide the scale of the problem.

[Barmaid]

And if a seasoned criminal like him (he has a number of previous convictions - not least for fraud) is stupid enough to put out that "I did what the police told me and pleaded guilty" he will be the laughing stock of HMP Hull.

[Gromit]

It was ridiculous to try to suppress the news of Robinson’s imprisonment. He has many followers and supporters, and the news rapidly spread on Social Media. The protest in Whitehall by his acolytes brought it to everyones attention, but the news outlets were still gagged.
His case fell under the original Restrictions because the trial Judge dealt with him. But this was clearly a separate matter. The crime committed by Robinson was totally different than the crime in the Court case. And the secrecy and news blackout were not justified or helpful in seeing that justice is done.

[Peter Pedant]

I have no idea why people think it is OK to publicly discuss on-going court cases.
It isnt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25210867

do we or do we not have speech ? blah blah blah
no not if it interferes with the admin of justice
this has always been the case

Tommy or Shylene or whatever his name is
was previously warned about VLOGging and ignored it.

since he had a previous conviction hanging over him,
it was activated by this conviction

Oddly contempt appeals are heard by the originating judge and not any other court who decline to exercise jurisdiction so it seems that Tommy is in the slammer for the next 13 months

( this last bit I think is subject to appeal to the European courts as clearly unfair but hey ! we're leaving those cheese eating surrender monkeys and repatriating our fantastic legal system so that is not gonna get very far)

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1577190-2.html
from some years ago

[-Talbot-]

Jack, you are being selective.
The police did tell his lawyer he was being released...are you happy with that?

[Islay]

Perhaps the police thought he was going to be released - after all its not them that have the final decision.

[jackthehat]

Talbot - No, I am not.

I certainly don't know that that is what the Police told him. It is outside their powers, anyway. Only the Judge can release him, or not. And he didn't.

[Barmaid]

It wasnt suppressed. It was postponed. The reason it was postponed was by necessity, the Judgement will have to refer to facts to do with the original trial. That is all. As soon as the jury have finished in their deliberations, it would have been released.

And it is not about protecting the defendants. It is about protecting the administration of justice. What makes it so much worse is that it was explained to TR on the last ocassion what the outcome of his actions may be. Through his lawyer he expressed naivety and apology, which seems a little disingenuous now.

[jackthehat]

To clarify.... my first answer is in response to the charge that I am being selective.