You are not connected. Please login or register

Tommy Robinson Thread

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 6]

26Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 10:51 am

The 'Tommy will be beaten to death in prison' rhetoric stems from a lie being spread about Kevin Crehan, who tied bacon sandwiches to Mosque door-handles, dying in prison. The fascists and fascist-sympathisers want everyone to think he was beaten to death by Muslim inmates - the reality is he overdosed on drugs.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/24/extremist-left-bacon-mosque-died-prison-drug-overdose-7573478/

View user profile

27Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 10:52 am

Mr. Happy wrote:Count Dankula showing what an utter fucking hypocrite he is

https://twitter.com/demarionunn/status/1000679818189422592

Tommy broke British laws (in place since 1925) designed to ensure free and fair trials.
He was on a suspended sentence having tried to confront defendants last year.
Kindly stop interfering in our attempts to secure justice for children.

Whether he was trying to do the right thing or not is irrelevant. And he wasn't as he doesn't know what the right thing is cos he is a hateful hypocritical cowardly shit

Just read this twitter thread for an informed perspective on why Tommy Robinson was a fucking idiot that got what was coming to him https://twitter.com/zia_khan94/status/1000593189265334273

I knew I'd find it. Here, look at reporters gathering around outside Amy Winehouse's trial in 2009, taking a picture of her before she went to court, for supposedly assaulting someone, which she got off with. (PS its spooky that her trial date is the 23rd of July, her date of death two years later.)

Amy Winehouse on trial for assault.

What they did was a violation of the law MORE than Tommy Robinson. He was outside the court after the trial was long over, when they were being sentenced. They snapped a picture of Amy going into the court (that's not the only one BTW I remember when it came out in the papers, there were dozens of pictures of her)

Should those reporters have gone to prison?

Here the MSM outside Count Dankula's house before he was even arrested.

Count Dankula Arrested

Its a stitch up. And saying he deserves to go to prison for 13 months where he will most likely be killed is laughable, and its going to bite you on the arse in the future when these people come for you next. And they will. They'll start with the Tommy Robinson's that nobody cares about, but that sets the precedent.

View user profile

28Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 10:54 am

The 'Tommy will be beaten to death in prison' rhetoric stems from a lie being spread about Kevin Crehan, who tied bacon sandwiches to Mosque door-handles, dying in prison. The fascists and fascist-sympathisers want everyone to think he was beaten to death by Muslim inmates - the reality is he overdosed on drugs.

Yeah and we all know that there is no trouble with Muslim gangs in prison don't we?

View user profile

29Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 12:10 pm

@burrunjor wrote:
The 'Tommy will be beaten to death in prison' rhetoric stems from a lie being spread about Kevin Crehan, who tied bacon sandwiches to Mosque door-handles, dying in prison. The fascists and fascist-sympathisers want everyone to think he was beaten to death by Muslim inmates - the reality is he overdosed on drugs.

Yeah and we all know that there is no trouble with Muslim gangs in prison don't we?


Tommee Tippee wrote:Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 33462588_1262313623904689_7566953195470061568_n

View user profile

30Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 12:23 pm

@Boofer wrote:
@burrunjor wrote:
The 'Tommy will be beaten to death in prison' rhetoric stems from a lie being spread about Kevin Crehan, who tied bacon sandwiches to Mosque door-handles, dying in prison. The fascists and fascist-sympathisers want everyone to think he was beaten to death by Muslim inmates - the reality is he overdosed on drugs.

Yeah and we all know that there is no trouble with Muslim gangs in prison don't we?


Tommee Tippee wrote:Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 33462588_1262313623904689_7566953195470061568_n

Well to be fair I never said that Tommy Robinson had already been beaten up or killed in prison. Just that its a VERY likely possibility if he does go down for 13 months.

There is a problem with Islam in prisons. The likes of Maajid Nawaz and Quilliam have drawn attention to it, and said its a pressing issue as so many young Muslim men who might go in for other reasons, or even just minor offences end up becoming radicalised by other inmates.

View user profile

32Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 3:34 pm

He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty piece of gammon.

View user profile

33Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 4:06 pm

Mr. Happy wrote:He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty piece of gammon.

These so called progressives who hate Tommy Robinson for supposedly being racist, LOVE to use gammon, which insults people for the colour of their skin! Imagine if I came up with an insult like beetroot for angry black SJWs.

View user profile

34Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 5:50 pm

The term really isn't about the normative spectrum of white skin tones though, is it?

It's referring to the colour that angry, middle-aged white men turn when they appear to be on the verge of having a medical emergency due to too much sun, booze, and indignation about immigrants.

View user profile

35Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 5:59 pm

@Boofer wrote:The term really isn't about the normative spectrum of white skin tones though, is it?

It's referring to the colour that angry, middle-aged white men turn when they appear to be on the verge of having a medical emergency due to too much sun, booze, and indignation about immigrants.


Well only white people can go pink, and the progressives make a point of it happening to white men a lot of the time too like that absolute arse Graham Linehan. (PS he called me a Gammon and I'm like 30 years younger than him LOL LOL LOL LOL )

View user profile

36Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 6:05 pm

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1001041837254238209

Even some of the far-right is trying to distance themselves from Stephen

View user profile

37Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 6:18 pm

Graham Linehan is detestably ideologically possessed.

Every response is direct from the social justice playbook. No subtlety, no nuance, just reactionary, facile accusation.  It's a shame because he wasn't half bad until he swallowed the fuckwit pill.

Right types have their soy boys, and lefties have their gammons. If anything it's indicative of the near-civil war ideological bifurcation that's happened post-Brexit and post-Trump. It's always bubbled under the surface, but the pan has boiled over.  This effect has been compounded by the the fact every IQ range (on both sides) now has the freedom to unrelentingly fire angry shards of antagonistic text at other citizens from the comfort of their homes and offices.

It has everything to do with the failure of globalism and globalisation in maintaining living standards in the West. Jobs pay poorly, are insecure and people are overworked. Homes and utilities are too expensive. The quality of healthcare, roads and institutions is falling. You then contrast that with the people who have benefited the most from this, and your see their wealth has exponentially increased. These are the same people who own our media, and provide the circuses which divide us - just so they can extricate our rights and living standards from us with the minimum amount of fuss.

View user profile

38Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 6:31 pm

A brilliant analysis Mr Boofer.

View user profile http://www.thefuckingobvious.com

39Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Mon 28 May 2018, 6:44 pm

@Boofer wrote:Graham Linehan is detestably ideologically possessed.

Every response is direct from the social justice playbook. No subtlety, no nuance, just reactionary, facile accusation.  It's a shame because he wasn't half bad until he swallowed the fuckwit pill.

Right types have their soy boys, and lefties have their gammons. If anything it's indicative of the near-civil war ideological bifurcation that's happened post-Brexit and post-Trump. It's always bubbled under the surface, but the pan has boiled over.  This effect has been compounded by the the fact every IQ range (on both sides) now has the freedom to unrelentingly fire angry shards of antagonistic text at other citizens from the comfort of their homes and offices.

It has everything to do with the failure of globalism and globalisation in maintaining living standards in the West. Jobs pay poorly, are insecure and people are overworked. Homes and utilities are too expensive. The quality of healthcare, roads and institutions is falling. You then contrast that with the people who have benefited the most from this, and your see their wealth has exponentially increased. These are the same people who own our media, and provide the circuses which divide us - just so they can extricate our rights and living standards from us with the minimum amount of fuss.

Completely 100 percent correct.

I've always said that identity politics is the greatest weapon against actual left wing politics there has ever been. Why else do people think its right wing cunts like George Soros, and Hillary Clinton that fund and foster things like the woman's march and third wave feminism? Why does Soros do it? Out of the goodness of his former Nazi heart?

Its so that those of us at the bottom fight each other over the stupidest, most petty differences like gender pronouns, or who is more oppressed etc, rather than working to change a system which allows bastards like him to horde all of the wealth.

Sadly however practically the only people in the media who have at least sort of analysed it and can see that identity politics is poison, are people like Sargon, and PJW who have come to dismiss all, actual left wing politics because its been associated with identity politics. They stupidly think if you are for the NHS for instance then you are a giant socialist weasel that hates white men, the same way that if you say anything bad about feminism, to a leftie you are a right wing Nazi, hate monger.

They've all been put off actual left wing ideas. Lefties care more about trivial bullshit, people who can see its trivial bullshit however jump to the right, and end up defending the likes of Ayn Fucking Rand, whilst NONE of them can see it they've been played by Soros and others like him.

What we are left with as a result is idiotic tribalism that will never get to the real route of the problem.

The Horseshoe effect has never been more obvious.

View user profile

40Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 10:28 am

Tommy Robinson used to work at Luton airport but ended up losing his job there following a bit of a “tussle” with an off duty policeman (for that please read that he gave him a beating) when the officer was intervened in a domestic assault between Yaxley-Lennon and his then girlfriend. Robinson was sent to prison for 12 months following that and could no longer be employed at the airport as employees needed a clean conviction history when security was tightened after 9/11.

https://resistinghate.org/tommy-robinson-edl-to-pegida/

So Tommy is a wife beater and former BNP member (still not a racist) as well then, a real working-class hero Rolling Eyes

View user profile

41Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 10:52 am

Whhhaaatttt??!?!? wrote:In 2004 Robinson joined the BNP and claims (in an interview with Andrew Neil) that he was not aware that the group was “white only”

Either he was being deliberately obtuse to hide his historical racist tendencies, or he really is that gullible.

I'd like to think the latter, as it's a lot funnier than the former. LOL LOL LOL

View user profile

42Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 12:17 pm

View user profile

43Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 6:21 pm

He's explained the BNP thing about a million times. He and Nick Griffin despise each other. As for the wife bit, well that's been explained too, even the officer said he wasn't hitting his wife. Tommy and his wife were arguing and the officer who later admitted he was mistaken, thought Tommy was hitting her and charged at him, so Tommy defended himself.

God Mr Happy. Its hilarious that you go fishing for the most desperate dirt on Tommy Robinson, yet you still haven't answered ANY of the questions he has put forward about Islamic integration.

So you saying then that there isn't any homophobia in Islam? You saying that its views on women are not abhorrent? You saying that it hasn't integrated with modern society? Cause the guy who coined the term Islamophobia has said that!

You also haven't answered why he should go to jail for apparently perverting a trial, when he was covering the sentencing of criminals, after their trial was finished.

Again should we go and round up these reporters who took photos of Amy Winehouse and spoke with her and wrote articles about her BEFORE her trial took place in 2009?

Amy Winehouse on Trial

It seems like there is some double standard here, and it comes right after we've had a few people being banned from the UK for wanting to talk to Tommy Robinson? Yeah coincidence I'm sure.

View user profile

44Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 6:33 pm

Tommy is a fucking idiot. He was warned about this behaviour having been done once for it already.

It's about jury influence, end of. The restrictions during trial are an essential part of jurisprudence. They ensure individuals and the media don't prejudice jural decision-making. It's not an issue of 'free speech'.

Seems like millions of wallies need to be educated on the meaning of 'contempt of court'.

View user profile

45Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 6:40 pm

A Reporter. wrote:Robinson, from Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to a charge of contempt of court.

A Reporter wrote:A judge told him his actions could cause the ongoing trial to be re-run, costing "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds".

A Reporter wrote:During Friday's hearing, Matthew Harding, defending, claimed that his client had "deep regret" for what he had done.

View user profile

46Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 6:50 pm

View user profile

47Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 6:52 pm

Here is a thread from a proper journalist explaining why Tommy is a cunt

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1001486655939805186

and here is one from somebody else explain the legality of why he is a cunt

https://twitter.com/zia_khan94/status/1000593189265334273

Robinson supporter were also crying over his address getting in the papers

Laura Hill

Verified account

@laurahillnews
Follow Follow @laurahillnews
More
Replying to @craiglufc97 @StephanieFinneg @leedslivenews
It was the address given in court. It was published as it would be for any other Tom, Dick or Harry who appeared in court. If Tommy was concerned he could have asked his solicitor to ask the judge to restrict the media from publishing the address. He didn’t.

While totally ignoring it was  his fault for getting in the papers in the first place

View user profile

48Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 7:14 pm

Wow, wow and wow.

Total and utter incompetence on both his and his lawyer's part.

How many times is this guy going to shoot himself in the foot?

I see the facebook threads are full of raging loons right now. Crimson heads exploding everywhere.

View user profile

49Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 9:12 pm

We need to dispel the dangerous myth that it's only Asian men who sexually assault young women
Yes Pakistani men are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs, and no, that is not a racist statement. Neither is it racist to say that when it comes to wider child abuse nearly 90 per cent of those convicted and on the sex offenders register are white men

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/newcastle-grooming-scandal-exploitation-victims-sarah-champion-race-a7890106.html

View user profile

50Tommy Robinson Thread - Page 2 Empty Re: Tommy Robinson Thread on Tue 29 May 2018, 11:00 pm

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

The Secret Barrister wrote:1. Why was Tommy Robinson arrested?

Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court having video recorded a number of men – including defendants involved in a live trial – entering the court building, and livestreaming the footage on Facebook in what he claimed was an attempt at legitimate court reporting. West Yorkshire police, having been alerted to his activities, arrested Lennon at the scene. The initial reports suggested that he was arrested for a suspected breach of the peace, but what is now clear from the facts published today is that his actions in broadcasting details about the trial were in breach of reporting restrictions.

2. 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.

Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.

3. But I heard Tommy Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. What is a breach of the peace? How is a breach of the peace caused by someone simply filming?

Police officers have common law powers (i.e. powers not set out in statute) to arrest somebody where a breach of the peace is committed or where the officer reasonably believes it will be committed in the immediate future. As to what constitutes a breach of the peace, it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad definition.

The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are reasonable grounds to fear that a demonstrator or protestor is likely to incite violence, even violence against themselves. This appears to be applicable to the present case. Robinson provocatively filming defendants and streaming on Facebook for the edification of his cult, is the kind of thing which could, it might be argued, lead to a breach of the peace.

Once a person has been arrested for breaching the peace, the police have the power to detain that person where there is a real apprehension that if released they will renew the breach of the peace within a short time, and where the police believe that further detention is necessary to prevent this. Given Robinson’s history of interfering with criminal trials and his defiance towards court orders, one can see why the police may have genuinely feared that he would have simply returned to court if not detained. The power of detention is time-limited – the detainee must be released within 24 hours (if not charged), or for serious (indictable) offences, detention may be authorised up to 96 hours.
4.  How can it be legal for somebody to be arrested for breach of the peace and then imprisoned for contempt?

It is perfectly common for a person to be arrested on suspicion of one offence, and then ultimately charged or dealt with for another. In this case, it appears that Yaxley-Lennon was arrested and detained for causing or threatening a breach of the peace, and that the court, upon being made aware of his activities, directed that he be brought to court to be dealt with for contempt of court. Even if his original arrest and detention had been unlawful (and there is nothing at all to suggest that it was), this would have absolutely no bearing on the contempt proceedings. The “breach of the peace” angle is a red herring.

5. So back up a step – what exactly is contempt of court?

Contempt of court is a broad, catch-all term for various offences against the administration of justice. The law(s) of contempt are designed to safeguard the fairness of legal proceedings and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court. Some contempts are set out in statute, including the aptly-named Contempt of Court Act 1981. This sets out what is referred to as “strict liability contempt” – the rule that it is a contempt to publish any matter which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the course of justice in legal proceedings, irrespective of the intention behind the publication. There is a defence available to publishers (which includes newspapers, TV and social media users) who can show they were providing “a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith”, thus giving some latitude to the press and ensuring that the media do not shy away from accurate, factual reporting of criminal proceedings.

Other contempts are more eclectic, such as the prohibition on taking photographs or moving images inside a court building (or even drawing a picture – court sketch artists have to draw outside the court from memory – section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925).

There is also a common law offence of “criminal contempt”, which is defined by the courts as “conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself.” This might include refusing to answer questions in court, physically disrupting court proceedings, interfering with witnesses or jurors (where not charged as a distinct offence of witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice) or defying a judge’s order.

Which brings us back to Mr Yaxley-Lennon, and a sunny day in May last year at Canterbury Crown Court.

6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (Asian) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing Muslim child rapists”. He was thwarted by the judge making arrangements for the defendants and jurors to leave court through alternative routes, and so settled for filming himself on camera, both on the court steps and inside the court building, preaching to his online followers about “Muslim paedophiles”. He was interrupted and told by court staff that recording was prohibited (section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, as we’ve discussed above), but continued to record, insisting that he had been told by a different court that he was entitled to film the defendants (notwithstanding that court buildings are plastered with signs reminding people not to do this). His video diatribe – in which he said that “the paedophiles are hiding”, that the police had asked him not to “expose” them as paedophiles (presumably on the basis that they were, at that time, defendants in a live trial) but that “we will”, and that he would be “going round to their house” to catch the defendants on camera – thus continued. The judge hearing the rape trial was made aware, and he was brought before court to be dealt with for contempt of court.

The judge, HHJ Norton, dealt with Yaxley-Lennon on 22 May 2017. She found that he was in contempt by having filmed inside the court building, contrary to section 41, but was also in common law contempt by having continued to film having been told to stop by the court staff. The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months. In practical terms, a suspended sentence means that the prison sentence (3 months) hangs over you for the operational period (18 months). If you remain offence-free and comply with any requirements the court makes, you will never have to serve your sentence. If you reoffend, the presumption in law is that you will serve that prison sentence, additional to whatever sentence you receive for the new offence.

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

No, ye of little brain. He was found to be in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence because his actions put a serious criminal trial in jeopardy. Running around a court building shouting “paedophile” at defendants during a live trial, or live-streaming defendants and members of the public – potentially including jurors – entering and exiting a court building against a tub thumping narration of “Muslim paedophile gangs”, is hardly conducive to ensuring a fair trial. And if there can’t be a fair trial, nobody gets justice. Not the accused, not the complainants, not the public. This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon.

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates”  – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

   “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?

9. 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. 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.

10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

Contempt proceedings do not attract a jury trial. The procedure for a court dealing with a criminal contempt is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These allow for a “summary procedure”, where the court, having made its own enquiries and offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away. The Crown Court can commit a contemnor to prison for up to two years. There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion  of any prejudice;  Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by an experienced barrister and would have received full legal advice.

He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions (under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 again), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial, and the subsequent related trial, had concluded. This, you may think, is for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his deranged followers – as was indeed attempted when the restrictions were defied by far-right blogs and foreign news outlets – would present exactly the sort of distraction that threatened to disrupt the very serious criminal proceedings that the judge was desperately seeking to keep on the rails.

In the event, the repeated breaches of the order by foreign news outlets and social media users meant that the judge’s intentions were thwarted. An application to discharge the reporting restriction was made on 29 May 2018 and the judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts.

It is also worth noting that there is a Practice Direction dealing with situations where defendants are imprisoned for contempt of court. This requires that full judgments be published online and handed to the media where a person is committed to prison for contempt. As we can expect imminently.

As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.



*************************

UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:



11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

This is quite something. But, sadly, Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, he prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum