Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News0 min ago
Tommy Robinson's Case Referred To The Attorney General.
59 Answers
https:/
Will he now be allowed the freedom to speak openly in a higher court?
Will he now be allowed the freedom to speak openly in a higher court?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Might as well tell the sun not to rise or the rivers not to flow. //
the tears not to flow not the sighs of regret to rise from the breast
Tommy ( blessed Tommy - saviour of all things British) referred to the AG - and then the heart sink phrase - AOG asks ....
oh and referral to the AG has nothing at all to do with freedom to speak in a higher court but you probably have guessed that by now
( higher and louder - the judges are deaf ....)
the tears not to flow not the sighs of regret to rise from the breast
Tommy ( blessed Tommy - saviour of all things British) referred to the AG - and then the heart sink phrase - AOG asks ....
oh and referral to the AG has nothing at all to do with freedom to speak in a higher court but you probably have guessed that by now
( higher and louder - the judges are deaf ....)
//Against the advice of his former lawyers, Tommy Robinson planned to give the following statement during his contempt of court hearing today. The statement was provided to the judge yesterday, which the judge, The Recorder of London, Nicholas Hilliard, QC, cited as playing a significant role in his decision to not hear the case today.//
I can C&P the statement if anyone ls interested. (It's rather long)
That, imo, gives the impression that he'd made his mind up the day before. But, as I previously said, he initially turned down the idea of referring it to a higher court. Changed his mind 10 minutes later. All rather odd. (in my opinion)
I can C&P the statement if anyone ls interested. (It's rather long)
That, imo, gives the impression that he'd made his mind up the day before. But, as I previously said, he initially turned down the idea of referring it to a higher court. Changed his mind 10 minutes later. All rather odd. (in my opinion)
// Will he now be allowed the freedom to speak openly in a higher court? //
The observation implies that 'Tommy Robinson' has not had the freedom to speak in any of the courts he has been in so far - which I seriously doubt.
Although 'Tommy Robinson' loves to martyr himself as a figure who is repressed and kept quiet because what he has to say is inpopular with the Establishment, I observe the exact opposite to be true.
'Tommy Robinson' uses each and every opportunity there is to speak in public, and via the media - absence of such an ability would mean that his reputation and livelihood, built as they are on exactly that ability to speak freely would have died out long ago and we would never hear of him again.
One of my major with 'Tommy Robinson' is that he uses the freedom of speech available to everyone in our free society, to compain that he does not have access to free speech because what he says is unpalatable.
In my view, what he says is unpalatable, not because what he says is untrue, but because it is presented in a way that creates racial tension, unrest, and civil disobedience - but I would never ever want him to be silenced, because free speech is a vital aspect of a free and fair society.
I imagine that 'Tommy Robinson' is fully aware of the galaxy-sized irony of using free speech to complain that free speech is denied to him - but he has built a seriously lucrative business out of it, so I doubt he is minded to stop now.
I also hope the case is dismissed - if only to temporarily remove the platform on which 'Tommy Robinson' struts and puffs and shouts his nonsense. That will of course be temporary, but any respite is welcome.
The observation implies that 'Tommy Robinson' has not had the freedom to speak in any of the courts he has been in so far - which I seriously doubt.
Although 'Tommy Robinson' loves to martyr himself as a figure who is repressed and kept quiet because what he has to say is inpopular with the Establishment, I observe the exact opposite to be true.
'Tommy Robinson' uses each and every opportunity there is to speak in public, and via the media - absence of such an ability would mean that his reputation and livelihood, built as they are on exactly that ability to speak freely would have died out long ago and we would never hear of him again.
One of my major with 'Tommy Robinson' is that he uses the freedom of speech available to everyone in our free society, to compain that he does not have access to free speech because what he says is unpalatable.
In my view, what he says is unpalatable, not because what he says is untrue, but because it is presented in a way that creates racial tension, unrest, and civil disobedience - but I would never ever want him to be silenced, because free speech is a vital aspect of a free and fair society.
I imagine that 'Tommy Robinson' is fully aware of the galaxy-sized irony of using free speech to complain that free speech is denied to him - but he has built a seriously lucrative business out of it, so I doubt he is minded to stop now.
I also hope the case is dismissed - if only to temporarily remove the platform on which 'Tommy Robinson' struts and puffs and shouts his nonsense. That will of course be temporary, but any respite is welcome.
I am the defendant in these contempt proceedings, and the Court has served me with two allegations of contempt against me. This is one more than I faced in the Crown Court at Leeds.
In relation to the first allegation, breaching the order of the court, which requires as I understand it an intention to interfere with the administration of justice, I would like to say this.
Firstly, I would like to assure the court that undermining the court’s authority or interfering with the administration of justice was never my intention. I believed I acted in good faith within the parameters of the section 4 reporting restriction in place. The information I provided was in the public domain, factual and relevant but did not provide any details of the trial proceedings other than what had already been reported previously and was readily available online. I rely on the documents in my bundle as examples of what had previously been reported.
When I arrived at Leeds Crown Court that morning I could not obtain any specific details of the reporting restriction order. I do not believe there is a website which holds such details, so I researched online and reviewed the reporting restriction guidelines provided. They state that the court should include details of reporting restrictions on the court listings both online and in court and also provide a notice on the door of the court. My solicitors have photographic evidence to show that the court did not follow these guidelines that day and had no details listed anywhere of a reporting restriction for that case. This is also in the bundle. The only time the notification about reporting restrictions was available was later that afternoon after the Court had convicted me and sent me to prison. Only then did the Court follow the guidelines and list a reporting restriction against the court listings for both the grooming case and my subsequent case.
After my previous experience with contempt of court in Canterbury I went out of my way to ensure I would not fall foul of the law again. I privately paid for training with one of London’s leading law firms, Kingsley Napley, to cover all details regarding contempt of court. There is documentation in relation to this in my bundle.
In relation to the first allegation, breaching the order of the court, which requires as I understand it an intention to interfere with the administration of justice, I would like to say this.
Firstly, I would like to assure the court that undermining the court’s authority or interfering with the administration of justice was never my intention. I believed I acted in good faith within the parameters of the section 4 reporting restriction in place. The information I provided was in the public domain, factual and relevant but did not provide any details of the trial proceedings other than what had already been reported previously and was readily available online. I rely on the documents in my bundle as examples of what had previously been reported.
When I arrived at Leeds Crown Court that morning I could not obtain any specific details of the reporting restriction order. I do not believe there is a website which holds such details, so I researched online and reviewed the reporting restriction guidelines provided. They state that the court should include details of reporting restrictions on the court listings both online and in court and also provide a notice on the door of the court. My solicitors have photographic evidence to show that the court did not follow these guidelines that day and had no details listed anywhere of a reporting restriction for that case. This is also in the bundle. The only time the notification about reporting restrictions was available was later that afternoon after the Court had convicted me and sent me to prison. Only then did the Court follow the guidelines and list a reporting restriction against the court listings for both the grooming case and my subsequent case.
After my previous experience with contempt of court in Canterbury I went out of my way to ensure I would not fall foul of the law again. I privately paid for training with one of London’s leading law firms, Kingsley Napley, to cover all details regarding contempt of court. There is documentation in relation to this in my bundle.
On that morning at Leeds Crown Court I had knowledge of the verdicts of the first phase of this grooming trial and many of the specific details discussed in court for this particular trial. I did not talk about these in my livestream on that day. I had understood based on my training that the specifics of the case and the verdicts were off limits for reporting restrictions.
Having been unable to obtain any details from the court on the conditions of the reporting restriction I decided to review the guidelines for reporting restrictions. On the Judiciary’s website there is a practical guide aimed at judges and the media on the statutory and common law principles that should be applied with regards to reporting restrictions. The paper was called ‘Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 (Revised May 2016)’. In this paper it stated that Courts have no power under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain (see page 27 of this document).
I followed my training and this guidance to the letter. I did not divulge any of the previous case verdicts, did not detail any specifics mentioned in the trial, did not assume guilt and refrained from entering court property. I even asked the officer outside the court where the court boundaries were and that I was ok to film where I was to which he confirmed.
I also followed that guidance document issued on the Judiciary website informing me that I could only reference information that was already in the public domain. Every single thing I said that day was already in the public domain. I actually read charges and names of the defendants from a BBC article which to this day is still live on their website. I also made sure not to film anyone other than the defendants, I was calm and respectful throughout.
Having been unable to obtain any details from the court on the conditions of the reporting restriction I decided to review the guidelines for reporting restrictions. On the Judiciary’s website there is a practical guide aimed at judges and the media on the statutory and common law principles that should be applied with regards to reporting restrictions. The paper was called ‘Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 (Revised May 2016)’. In this paper it stated that Courts have no power under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain (see page 27 of this document).
I followed my training and this guidance to the letter. I did not divulge any of the previous case verdicts, did not detail any specifics mentioned in the trial, did not assume guilt and refrained from entering court property. I even asked the officer outside the court where the court boundaries were and that I was ok to film where I was to which he confirmed.
I also followed that guidance document issued on the Judiciary website informing me that I could only reference information that was already in the public domain. Every single thing I said that day was already in the public domain. I actually read charges and names of the defendants from a BBC article which to this day is still live on their website. I also made sure not to film anyone other than the defendants, I was calm and respectful throughout.
It is my understanding that there is no individual in the last 60 years that has been sentenced to prison for a publication breach of a reporting order. It would appear to me that my punishment is exceptional. I would ask that I am treated in the same manner as every other journalist who has been charged with these allegations. The journalist Rod Liddle was writing for the Spectator magazine in relation to the Stephen Lawrence murder trial, and when he was sentenced for breaching the section 4 order, and risking prejudice to the trial, was given a fine. Journalists at the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror published highly prejudicial material on the trail of Levi Bellfield who abducted and murdered an 11-year-old child. This contempt of court led to the collapse of the entire case and discharge of the jury and robbed one of his victims of the chance for justice. The reporters in this instance were not prosecuted and instead their employers were found guilty of contempt and fined £10,000.
I have reviewed the transcripts from Leeds Crown Court where the Judge was discussing various reporting order breaches. The judge and the CPS discuss the fact that multiple news sources breached the very same order placed on my trial with some breaching both the reporting orders by mentioning the grooming trial as well as my arrest and prison term. Lizzie Dearden the home affairs correspondent at the Independent actually refused to remove the article when provided with the order stating that the effect of social media voids reporting restrictions, so she could not be held in contempt of court. The CPS and the judge agreed that these breaches of the order were a matter for the Attorney General to review.
When I was informed of the blanket order, I offered to delete my video immediately. Despite the multiple breaches of the order by different newspapers that weekend and the flat refusal of Lizzie Dearden to take her article down, not one of those journalists or the editors of those publications, were ever arrested or prosecuted for s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.
I have reviewed the transcripts from Leeds Crown Court where the Judge was discussing various reporting order breaches. The judge and the CPS discuss the fact that multiple news sources breached the very same order placed on my trial with some breaching both the reporting orders by mentioning the grooming trial as well as my arrest and prison term. Lizzie Dearden the home affairs correspondent at the Independent actually refused to remove the article when provided with the order stating that the effect of social media voids reporting restrictions, so she could not be held in contempt of court. The CPS and the judge agreed that these breaches of the order were a matter for the Attorney General to review.
When I was informed of the blanket order, I offered to delete my video immediately. Despite the multiple breaches of the order by different newspapers that weekend and the flat refusal of Lizzie Dearden to take her article down, not one of those journalists or the editors of those publications, were ever arrested or prosecuted for s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News6 mins ago
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.