The series of trials at Leeds Crown Court of a large gang of mostly Muslim men accused of gross sexual offences against children and young women in Huddersfield has now ended with 19 Muslims and one Sikh being quite rightly gaoled for long periods. Now that the set of trials have concluded, the reporting restrictions imposed by Judge Geoffrey Marson QC to prevent later trials being compromised by the publication of the details of the earlier trials in these linked cases, have been lifted, which means that we can now hear just how bestial these savages have been. What can now be reported of this case makes for truly horrific reading, with 15 girls girls being groomed, plied with drugs, raped subjected to violence and trafficked to be abused by these Muslims who have now been gaoled for a total of 220 years.
Then sentences imposed on these beasts are most truly and unequivocally deserved. This feeling becomes stronger the more one reads how 15 girls as young as 11, including at least one girl said by the BBC to have severe learning difficulties, were drugged, raped and sold by these Pakistani scumbags to other rapist Pakistani scumbags.
This is truly an appalling crime made even more appalling by the knowledge that it is likely that not all the perpetrators of these crimes covered by these trials have been brought to justice. One of those on trial, Sajid Hussain absconded to Pakistan during the trial and there is the distinct possibility that those apprehended and brought to the courts are not the only rapist Muslims in the Huddersfield area. There could be many more Huddersfield Muslims who have taken part in this sort of abuse but who have either not yet been identified or for which there is insufficient evidence to bring them to trial. There is also the worry that this gang may have abused more girls than just those who bravely gave evidence of sexual abuse, rape, forced prostitution, intimidation and the other related offences for which these savages have been convicted. As with the situation in other towns and cities, it is more than likely that those convicted are not the only Muslims raping their way through the children and young women of Huddersfield, this case is probably the tip of a very nasty iceberg.
This case became highly controversial not just because of the litany of bestial behaviour exhibited by these Muslims but also because the involvement of Tommy Robinson in it. Mr Robinson reported via a livestream from the court and got himself gaoled for 13 months under the Contempt of Court Act by Judge Marson for doing so in a spectacularly high profile contempt of court trial, that later saw a retrial for Mr Robinson ordered by the Lord Chief Justice, Britain’s most senior criminal Judge. Mr Robinson’s trial for contempt is to take place at the Central Criminal Court in London on Tuesday 23rd October.
The controversy over Mr Robinson’s gaoling has helped to open up a lively public debate over court procedure and in particular court reporting. There are some, including myself, who believe that we should maybe look at having different methods to protect juries from media contamination instead of the Contempt of Court Act. Whilst it is vital to protect the idea of innocent until proven guilty, which the Contempt of Court Act does try to do, any system of justice worth the name should also allow justice to not only be done, but to be seen to be done. Draconian court reporting restrictions, imposed under COCA, to my mind clash with the idea of open and transparent justice and although they may be legally justified are pissing off the vast majority of the non legally trained public. If we want to protect the integrity of justice are there other ways of doing so is the question we should be asking. Should we sequester juries in all or certain high profile cases to prevent media contamination of juries, or go back to the time when both defence and prosecution could challenge jurors to weed out jurors who might be biased one way or another? Jury challenge and jury sequestration is common in courts in the USA but not in the United Kingdom where reporting restrictions are used instead.
I accept that there will always be some cases where reporting restrictions are morally and ethically justified, for example where the victims of crime are minors or if identifying them could put them in danger or where there is a danger of witness intimidation by defendants. However I believe that too liberal an application of reporting restrictions, even those that are imposed for the good reason of protecting the integrity of the justice process, as were the restrictions imposed by Judge Marson, are contributing to a lack off public confidence in the justice system. This government, in fact any government, should start to worry when public confidence in the justice system starts to plummet in the way it has during and following the Huddersfield case, the results of such a lack of confidence in how justice works is never good for the society to which this happens.
I’ve worked in courts as a court reporter many years ago and because of my experience in that field I can see the legal reasons why Judge Marson imposed the reporting restrictions that he did, but the majority of the British public do not and cannot. It would have been truly unjust if reporting of earlier trials had handed these Huddersfield animals with a weapon,that of allegations of jury contamination via media reports, to use in any appeal against conviction at a later date. I will not deny that Judge Marson made some pretty inexplicable decisions during this trial such as granting the defendants bail, which I believe was a mistake as defendants in these sort of cases are not only a flight risk but also present a risk of witness intimidation due to the high level criminal connections that many of these gang members have. Judge Marson should also come in for criticism for his treatment of Tommy Robinson, The COCA conviction and excessive term of imprisonment imposed by Mr Robinson for breach of COCA was quite rightly to my mind, quashed by the Lord Chief Justice and other High Court judges. If Judge Marson’s intention was to secure a free and fair trial for the defendants and to protect the court process from being undermined then he has failed spectacularly on the second count. The result of the reporting restrictions on this case may have prevented injustices in the court room but it has contributed greatly to a fall in public confidence in the judicial system.
The Huddersfield case and the controversies surrounding it have pushed the issue of Islamic Rape Gangs and the response to them into the public eye like nothing we’ve seen since the Rotherham cases. Not even the appalling Telford case where it is said that 1000 girls were victimised by a Muslim population lesser in size than that of Rotherham has gone as viral as the Huddersfield case. Judge Marson’s gaoling of Mr Robinson became a worldwide cause celebre and in a clear demonstration of the ‘Streisand Effect’ gave the case more publicity not less.
In my view it is good that this extra publicity surrounding this case has happened. Not only have people become much more aware of the size and scope of these Islamic Rape Gangs but also there is now intense public debate about how our courts operate. There are also many more discussions going on about whether or not reporting restrictions on linked trials along with other aspects of the Contempt of Court Act, are either the best way to secure justice or even if they are are inadvertently hindering transparency with regards to the court process.
I’m glad to see these Huddersfield savages gaoled but I am also angry that they were allowed to continue their abuse for such an extensive length of time and that local police forces were not apparently as active as they should have been in cracking down on these savages. I’m particularly concerned that those who came forward with allegations of abuse, grooming and intimidation were apparently not handled as well as they should have been by West Yorkshire Police. West Yorkshire Police kept complainants in the dark for years before these cases came to trial and these complainants should have been supported better and maybe kept better informed as to how the case was progressing.
These savages are now off the streets for a considerable time, a minimum of three years or so for those convicted of the lesser offences and at least 18 years for those who were the most bestial and culpable of the offenders. We should be thankful for that but we should also be aware that this is not the only group of Muslims who are led by their ideology to commit heinous crimes against the innocent. There are many more similar offenders out there and we must protect our children from them we must realise and be honest about the fact that Islam, along with the cultures that Islam creates, for example the Pakistani male culture, is the motivating force behind these crimes.
This case is one that has a tripartite result. It has resulted in the gaoling of some absolute monsters some for long periods of time, it has helped to publicise the extent of Britain’s Islamic Rape Gang problem and it has opened up a debate among the public about how transparent our justice system should be. This case is going to have effects that are far reaching. I foresee a much greater willingness on the part of the public do demand honest information about the part played by Islam in these offences and not have ‘grooming’ warnings dishonestly purged of any link with Islam, which is what sometimes happens. I also foresee calls to reform the Contempt of Court Act as reporting restrictions that are imposed under it were conceived in a non digital age and maybe are not fit for purpose when everyone with a cellphone can become a citizen reporter.
This is a disgusting case with disgusting crimes committed by disgusting people created by an equally disgusting ideology. It is not one that we should allow to fall from our memories any time soon. These Islamic Rape Gangs are a stain on our nation and it’s long past time that this stain was cleaned up, even if some Muslims are ‘offended’ by the truth that these crimes are rooted fairly and squarely in Islamic culture itself.
