[Decky]

Do you think Albert will be writing him love letters in prison? Like all those people who write to Brevik.

[Albert]

[Pants-of-dog]

@Albert

Let us do this step by step.

First question: what exactly was he arrested for?

Answer: he was arrested for reporting on a trial in breach of reporting restrictions.

Do you agree or disagree?

[blackjack21]

He was arrested and imprisoned for contempt of court, because he deliberately broke reporting restrictions* imposed during an active trial to prevent the trial from being compromised.

He cited the names of the defendants, which were published on the court's own website. That's hardly going to prejudice the trial.

And, as our resident pretend legal expert, you should be well aware that contempt of court is dealt with by summary judgment, which means that the "four hours" between his arrest and conviction is hardly surprising, regardless of what some idiot YouTubers who know nothing at all about English law claim.

I'm not asserting that the law was misconstrued, but rather that it is unjust in this case.

Furthermore, he admitted he knew that this was what he was doing in open court (again, not a "secret trial" - it was open to the public, and there were reporters there). He had even been specifically warned against doing it when he received a suspended sentence for doing exactly the same thing a year ago.

In America, we call this "civil disobedience." It just means that Tommy Robinson is seen by many as challenging the authority of an oppressive establishment that no longer represents the people it purports to represent.

To liken this in any way to the secret trials held in lawless dictatorships is infantile.

They put a gag order on the press to keep them from reporting it. That's very much like a dictatorship.

There is a vast, gaping chasm of knowledge between him and a Canadian YouTuber who knows nothing about how the law works.

We're not arguing about how the law works. It used to be lawful to auction off black people. That was how the law worked. It has since changed. We'd like this law to change too, especially the government using gag orders to prevent people from pointing out the deficiencies of the government itself.

Tommy Robinson is an Islamophobe and a shit disturber who incites people to violence.

He clearly was not inciting anyone to violence in the instant case.

[Downside]

TR Facebook

In 2014, the BBC even worked alongside the police to get a helicopter above Cliff Richards house when they went to arrest him, he had not even been charged at the time! No outcry from judges then though?

Coverage of raid on Cliff Richard's home was in public interest, BBC tells court

[Albert]

[B0ycey]

It's funny really. When you look at things clearly, Robinson should be sent to prison. He could have influenced the case I guess. But the debate on hypocrisy is fantastic. Until someone is convicted by a jury, according to this case, nobody should be named and nothing should be reported. Why? Because it can influence the case. The media in almost every high profile case who have named the suspect have done exactly what Robinson has done. In theory anyone who has been named in the media before a conviction could use this case for a retrial. I hope it happens. I have actually been against the media reporting names as it can ruin lives of those found innocent.

[Downside]

It's funny really. When you look at things clearly, Robinson should be sent to prison. He could have influenced the case I guess. But the debate on hypocrisy is fantastic. Until someone is convicted by a jury, according to this case, nobody should be named and nothing should be reported. Why? Because it can influence the case. The media in almost every high profile case who have named the suspect have done exactly what Robinson has done. In theory anyone who has been named in the media before a conviction could use this case for a retrial. I hope it happens. I have actually been against the media reporting names as it can ruin lives of those found innocent.

The man is a professional provocateur but is also working class and the power of his message derives from his authenticity.

TR Facebook
Have you read the spin in the papers today, the judge stated that Tommy reading the names of the defendants was contempt of court and risked the trial collapsing.

Tommy read the list in the livestream from a BBC article which was already out in the public domain. The list of defendants is publicly available on the court bloody website! If you search google for that particular case you will find pictures and details of the suspects already printed by nearly every national UK newspaper. So what did Tommy do exactly that nearly every other reporter has not already done?

You have to ask yourself the question - why would one reporter outside a court case reading a charge sheet already publicly available across a number of sources suddenly risk collapsing the case?

Every single other case across England is public and reported on. You will never hear a judge stating that by the newspapers reporting on it they are in some way prejudicing the case.

[Godstud]

If Tommy Robinson is working class, then I am the King of England.

He's a fucking politician and activist, and has been for the last 14 years. Owning a tanning salon doesn't make you "working class".

[Downside]

In the British political-legal system you can get away with everything if you’re posh

Kim Philby: I got away with treachery 'because I was upper class'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ld-war-spy

[snapdragon]

What is wrong with you people?

This what happened in Canterbury after he was arrested for disrupting a previous trial:

The judge's full statement.

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”

8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?
It is relevant because, when passing the suspended sentence, HHJ Norton gave some fairly clear warnings to Yaxley-Lennon:
“[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.
In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?“
And what did Yaxley-Lennon go and do?


So what did he go and do?


As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants, creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings. If this wasn’t enough, he was also in breach of reporting restrictions which he accepted he knew about. He was therefore, it seems, in contempt twice over. This could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury and start afresh, potentially meaning vulnerable complainants having to go through the trauma of a trial all over again, or even an application to “stay” (bring to an end) the proceedings altogether.
Importantly, Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court.
And he was committed to prison for 10 months, with the suspended sentence of 3 months activated and directed to run consecutively. Exactly as he’d been warned.

From my brilliant link. Thanls to those of you who liked it.


So exactly what is your problem with that?

What the hell does it have to do with the BBC filming the police searching Cliff Richards's home?

edit: Or the views of Kim Philby?

And are some of you really claiming that all Taxley-Lennon was doing was quietly reading a list of the suspects?


sheesh.

[Godstud]

Excellent sourcing and argument, @snapdragon.

[B0ycey]

The judge's full statement.
[i]This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly.

Forget this case. Under the judges ruling Tommy should be sent to prison. But under the same ruling everyone has the same privilege. So explain under the this ruling naming a suspect, describing the alleged allegations and writing an opinion piece doesn't affect the jury in a high profile case? This has opened pandoras box. I love it.

[demima]

I believe this to be supremely unfair and unjust. I understand that the guy is basically a rambling anti-immigration slightly racist radical right winger. But he should have the right to do this without being impeded. It is the same right that METOO movement has or any movement for the matter. Why is he not allowed to pay attention/show this situation to the world?

Because there are laws against doing such things in courts, especially during a trial whereby his "reports" may be jeopardise a free trial. He was warned more than once, but continued. Good riddance to bad rubbish in my opinion.

I'm no fan of Tommy Robinson, but you have to say this is a bullshit trumped up charge against him if you watch the 'The Rebel' video only. The gagging order seems to be a way to silence the media and discourages meaningful debate so I am inclined to believe their side actually. So it looks like another government hush job like the Sailsbury posioning. It's seems since May has taken over the UK is becoming a police state where evidence is no longer needed if someones feelings get hurt. God we need something new in parliament. Either we have freedom of speech or we don't. RIP UK. Sad times.

I fail to realise how much of a 'meaningful debate' one can have when the debate is about whether Muslims are paedophiles? Tommy Robinson (Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon), was itching to be arrested so he can turn around and say "look, they're trying to protect evil muslamics". He is nothing but a merchant of hate and should not be supported by anyone who sees themselves as democrats.

[JohnRawls]

Because there are laws against doing such things in courts, especially during a trial whereby his "reports" may be jeopardise a free trial. He was warned more than once, but continued. Good riddance to bad rubbish in my opinion.

By this notion any reporting of the Trial will jepordise it then. I mean METOO and rape accusations will work in the same way. It is a stick with two edges.

[demima]

By this notion any reporting of the Trial will jepordise it then. I mean METOO and rape accusations will work in the same way. It is a stick with two edges.

Please read article here. It's a legal view on Tommy Robinsons conviction which is not as controversial as those on the alt-right want to make it out to be.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

[demima]

Probably a waste of time this, but I live in hope:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/ ... -robinson/

Nice, I posted this above without realising it was already posted. You may live in hope but I'm perennially disappointed!

[snapdragon]

Forget this case. Under the judges ruling Tommy should be sent to prison. But under the same ruling everyone has the same privilege. So explain under the this ruling naming a suspect, describing the alleged allegations and writing an opinion piece doesn't affect the jury in a high profile case? This has opened pandoras box. I love it.

@B0ycey,


You really love it? Strange, still whatever floats your boat.

Point number 2 taken from the link I provided should cover that.

What are reporting restrictions?
The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done. However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations – from automatic restrictions preventing the identification of a complainant in a sexual allegation, to restrictions preventing reporting of Youth Court proceedings, to discretionary restrictions protecting the identity of child witnesses in the adult courts. Further details, if you are interested, can be found here.
One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of drug networks involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end. Where there is a separate-but-related issue, such as a contempt of court involving a third party, this can also be the subject of a section 4(2) order. The test is:

Would a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the proceedings (or part thereof) published in good faith create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings?


Is an order postponing the publication of such reports necessary and are its terms proportionate? Would such an order eliminate the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice? Could less restrictive measures achieve the objective?


On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?

This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.



That should answer your question.


edit: Thanks, Demima.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Only the mindlessly incompetent liberals could turn a scumbag like Tommy Robinson into a champion of free speech.

[Godstud]

Uhhh, It's the Conservatives doing that, @jessupjonesjnr87 . Haven't you been paying attention? Sheesh!

Tommy Robinson is a far right wing activist.