I wanted to wait a few days before I wrote about the latest Tommy Robinson case. I didn’t want to jump in and comment without thought or care or comment too early, but the time has now come to speak about the new charges that have been brought against Mr Robinson under the Contempt of Court Act.
Like many I was gratified to see that the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett recognised at the High Court that Mr Robinson had not been given a fair trial for contempt of court following his arrest at Leeds Crown Court. Unlike some, I also could see that this matter had, for the sake of open justice, to be retried in order to establish the facts of the matter. Therefore I was pleased to see that the Recorder of London Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC was going to preside over the retrial at the Central Criminal Court in London. This because Judge Hilliard is a judge with a strong reputation for handling serious and difficult cases and handling them well. If any judge could be expected to handle this case fairly then it would be him.
When Mr Robinson’s case came up before the Recorder of London at the Central Criminal Court, I was in the crowd outside the court taking part in the support demonstration for Mr Robinson. Like a good number of others that day I was shocked and surprised that Judge Hilliard had, on receiving a statement from Mr Robinson about the Leeds incident, may have realised that all was not well with this case and referred it up to the Attorney General, currently Geoffery Cox QC MP.
When the case went up to the Attorney General Mr Cox, who to give some background is both a supporter of leaving the EU and has successfully defended a British soldier against spurious allegations of war crimes whilst fighting in Iraq, I expected one or two things to happen. The first was that the case would be dropped as not only had the initial Leeds trial been compromised by bad procedure, but also the retrial had had to be stopped due to extra evidence provided by Mr Robinson.
The dropping of this case would in my view would have been welcome but unlikely bearing in mind that the government has invested much in trying to shut up Mr Robinson. The second thing that I expected to happen is that the original contempt of court charges would be reissued and the case would be tried before another senior judge. For the sake of open justice, I would have welcomed these original charges being retried and hopefully thrown out of court. These matters should have been tested in an open court, not only because testing these matters is the just thing to do but also because such a case may have an implication for future contempt of court case law. Anyone who has taken the time to read the Contempt of Court Act will know that this is a very complex piece of legislation and any clarification of it or a new interpretation of it that came out of a new trial for the original charges against Mr Robinson, would have been both interesting and useful.
However, what has emerged from the office of the Attorney General is not a better worded version of the original contempt of court charges, something I could understand, but new ones that concentrated, according to Mr Robinson, on how his alleged conduct caused ‘anxiety’ to the defendants in the Leeds trial. The charges further allege that Mr Robinson’s alleged conduct could have exposed the defendants to harassment by Mr Robinson’s followers and that the conduct would have prevented the defendants from fully engaging with their trial. Mr Robinson outlines the charges in a video that can be found here.
I’ve been struggling to find a word that describes these strangely worded and odd charges and at the moment I’m finding it hard to choose between the words ‘ludicrous’ and ‘laughable’ as both of these words describe the charges quite accurately.
I don’t think it at all likely that Mr Robinson’s supporters would have physically confronted the defendants in the Leeds trial, I think a lot of them have got too much brains to risk putting a trial like this in peril and get themselves in serious legal trouble doing so. In any event, there was, from what I observed of the incident via video of the alleged Leeds incidents would not remotely come into the category of incitement to a criminal act such as violence against the defendants. In any event, Mr Robinson is not responsible for the actions of others who may have taken his words the wrong way. In this area there are similarities to the Milo Yiannopolis case. Milo was not responsible for his followers who cracked jokes at the expense of the actress Lesley Jones, although Milo was banned from Twitter because of the actions of these followers.
As for the actions of Mr Robinson causing the defendants in the Muslim Rape Gang case ‘anxiety’ then this is a odd choice of words by the Attorney General and other Government law officers when comparing the charges to what we know of this case. The defendants had already been convicted and there was little for them to have to concern themselves with, as far as I can see, apart from instructing their counsel on matters pertaining to mitigation. I fail to see how Mr Robinson’ s conduct caused much more ‘anxiety’ in the minds of the convicted defendants than that of the prospect of being gaoled for an exceptionally long time would have?
Although the legal hypothetical ‘reasonable man’, the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ is usually brought into play with regards negligence and defamation cases, many of us feel that it could equally apply to the Robinson case. A reasonable, common man, a man who is rational, reasonably well informed and impartial, the man on the Clapham Omnibus may well indeed look at the wording of the charges levelled at Mr Robinson and exclaim ‘WTF’. These charges do not look to me in anyway to be reasonable, they are not rational and they certainly don’t seem to have been levelled or formulated in any impartial way. As I said earlier I would have expected the original charges to be put to Mr Robinson again, maybe with slight wording changes, but the replacement charges are very different. Gone it seems is the allegation that Mr Robinson’s actions allegedly could have compromised a trial and in their place come very vague allegations that Mr Robinson caused ‘anxiety’ to some pretty nasty convicted defendants.
The wording of the charges look to me as if they voicing the desperation of the government who is caught between a rock and a hard place with regards Mr Robinson. They Government, or elements in the Government, may well want to shut him up before his message reaches even more people than it does already. Mr Robinson frightens the multicultural horses and disturbs those who believe that everything in this ‘diversity’ garden is rosy. Mr Robinson disabuses many who believe this fiction of their belief that ‘all is well’ and some of them really don’t like that.
As I said the government is in a bit of a bind with Mr Robinson, there must be those in government who can see that Britain is becoming more like a social pressure cooker day by day. Brexit and the debacle of the negotiations has mobilised people to be politically engaged like nothing I can recall apart from the campaign against the Poll Tax. Couple that with an increasing anger among ordinary people about excessive levels of immigration, crime and the increasingly aggressive and intolerant Islamic communities that live among us and you have all the ingredients for a perfect storm of a very unwelcome nature.
Of course the government, any government, would be zealous in wanting to keep the lid on this pot before it broke out into open conflict and criminality. This is especially the case post 2011 when he scale and intensity of the riots that occurred then must have shown the Government that the security forces are inadequate to the task of quelling such disturbances once they get going. One thing that must be on the government’s mind is the volatility of some of Britain’s Islamic communities. They will riot at the drop of a hat or if their ideology is challenged as they were on the streets in the old EDL days or if someone publishes a cartoon of Mohammed. The very last thing that the Government need at this point in time is the non Muslim and Muslim communities engaging in mass street protests against each other. I have to say at this point that I neither agree with, approve of or encourage such actions as I believe that they are evidence of societal failure rather than anything positive.
Because of the danger of violence from this Islamic quarter, and as the vast majority of the 753 people killed in terrorist attacks between 2000 and 2018 were killed in attacks Islamic that were Islamic in nature; which shows that this danger of disturbance is real; the Government are forced into a position where they may feel that they need to appease this community in order to avoid violence and disturbance coming from them. Therefore the government need to be seen by this community to be doing ‘something’ about Mr Robinson and taking seriously the ‘concerns’ of Muslims. This case, and much else with regarding the targetting of Mr Robinson is basically an Islamic ‘hecklers veto’ on non Muslims speaking up against those aspects of Islamic culture and theology that they disagree with. Allowing such a veto by such a group is not really compatible with having any sort of society that aspires to consider itself free.
The charges that are being levelled at Mr Robinson look like a last, panicky throw of the dice in their battle to simultaneously shut Mr Robinson up, appease the Islamic community leaders who are pushing the government to stop Mr Robinson speaking, and to get back to the comforting lie that everything in the multicultural garden is blooming. The charges are worded in such a way that places a great emphasis on the perception of the defendants of Mr Robinson’s actions and this strikes me as having the capacity to be entirely unjust. There is every incentive for the defendants to lie and say that they were caused ‘anxiety’ by Mr Robinson’s actions, even if that was not the case as they may believe or have been led to believe that helping the Crown’s case against Mr Robinson will bring them some sort of benefit. Unlike other factors, defendant ‘anxiety’ is very difficult to quantify and assess and these charges are very similar, ominously similar in fact, to how ‘hate crime’ cases are prosecuted in relying on the highly subjective and difficult to judge, ‘perceptions’ of the complainant. Maybe the government is hoping that such a vague and intensely personal thing as ‘perception’ will take the place of real solid evidence against Mr Robinson, evidence that is looking increasingly shaky to observers?
I can’t see how the Government can win out of this prosecution I really cannot. Even if they get a conviction on the dubious basis of the ‘perceptions’ of the convicted members of this Muslim Rape Gang, and Mr Robinson is gaoled, it will not make the problem of the public’s increasingly jaundiced view of Islam go away. It will certainly not remove or reduce the anger at the large number of Islamic Rape Gangs that are steadily being uncovered and brought before the courts. Neither will it stop Britons, even those Britons who are not out and out Tommy Robinson fans from looking askance at a prosecution that is giving the impression is more political than legal. The government may have thought that gaoling Mr Robinson following the Leeds case would have neutralised this issue but it did not. It only brought many more people into the fold of Islam-criticism and support for Mr Robinson. It may be a little ‘tin foil hat’ for me to say so but these charges are so ludicrous and laughable that I can’t help but wonder if they are designed to fail when examined closely? The Government needs to be seen by the Islamic community and by powerful Leftists to be going after Mr Robinson but they can’t get him on any solid evidence and they can’t be seen to drop the case. Putting forward a case that is doomed to fail either at the initial trial or at some later appeal may be a way for the government to get themselves off the hook as it were? They could claim in that situation that they have prosecuted Mr Robinson, but were defeated in the courts at which point the Govt can wash their hands of at least this one hot legal and political potato.
Even those commentators who have issues with Mr Robinson, such as the independent journalist Mr Tim Pool who has claimed that Mr Robinson has put out fake news, are calling this prosecution out as being a wrong ‘un. I think that this prosecution is a grave mistake on the part of the Attorney General who may have thought he has created a cast iron case against Mr Robinson. However no matter how cast iron this case may be legally, it is full of holes morally. Mr Robinson should have been tried on the original charges that he may have endangered the integrity of a trial or the case should have been dropped. I fear that this prosecution will only deepen the divisions in our society, divisions that in large part have been caused by successive government policies towards Islam and multiculturalism. If the government wanted to create martyrs for free speech, or martyrs in the struggle against the ideologies of Islam and multiculturalism, then this, prosecution is the way to go about it. As I have said on numerous occasions both on here and elsewhere, I want to see our current problems sorted out for the benefit of all the inhabitants of these Islands and I also want to see peaceful legitimate political change, but these new charges against Mr Robinson are extremely counter productive. The government is embarking on a worrying path by prosecuting Mr Robinson in this way as they will not only perversely increase the man’s popularity and make things worse not better.
The alleged possible outcome was disproven in fact, as is recorded in the video that Tommy did on the day. The only people who expressed any aggression that day were the convicted child rapists – who threatened to rape Tommy’s mother or wife. The rest of the passers-by expressed support for what Tommy was doing, but they didn’t linger to join Tommy to threaten or harass the child-rapists, they just walked on.
If the very video in question had not captured the actions of Tommy’s supporters, then this case would remain speculative. Instead there is concrete evidence that Tommy’s supporters behaved in the contrary to what the Attorney General’s case alleges.
I hope this new trial goes before a jury, rather than being a Diplock court like the other proceedings were.
Yes the original charges failed as it could not have been shown that Mr Robinson’s actions would have effected the trial or other linked hearing. There is indeed a double standard in how Mr Robinson is being treated and the convicted defendants who shouted abuse. I agree that the video captured at the time could well indeed disprove these new charges.
As regards the future trial, my reading of the Contempt of Court Act leads me to believe that as these are strictly matters of law and the interpretation of law rather than of fact, this case is more than likely one that will be tried by a judge alone.
I’d much prefer it if TR was facing a jury – in Leeds rather than London. This grotesque nonsense would be kicked into touch in short order. I’ve 0 confidence in the UK regime and its works – which applies to the judiciary and most particularly to the police. We are greatly indebted to Ezra Levant who has lifted the lid in Peterborough over the last two days, it isn’t a pretty sight
The problem is that the sort of case that Mr Robinson faces is not normally tried before a jury. I think that this would also apply in the Cambridgeshire case which is a civil trial. It will be interesting to see if Mr Robinson can beat the police in this case especially as civil courts have a lower burden of proof, ‘balance of probabilities’ as opposed to the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of the criminal courts.
Whilst I am grateful for Mr Levant’s reporting, I worry about the standard of it as he should know that opining in court reports in Britain is a tricky thing to do. He was taking the piss out of the court a little and that’s a no no in the UK and I am concerned, as is the commentator Politico as to whether Mr Levant’s actions have damaged Mr Robinson’s case. There is a fine line between opining that is acceptable to the court and that which is not. We may wish or desire a more ‘American’ system of court reporting rules but they are not our rules at least until Parliament changes the law to say otherwise. This incident strengthen’s my view that alt media needs to start to teach people the basics of journalism the ‘who what how where when why’ skills and in particular court reporting skills. It’s all too easy for a novice reporter or an alt news reporter who hasn’t been in a court before to get things horrendously wrong and either compromise a trial or name a minor victim to a sex crime for example. Although the big agencies do a reasonable job of reporting from courts they can’t cover all the courts all the time and properly trained alt news reporters could fill that gap.
However having said that it is good that Mr Levant, despite the noted issues that the judge pointed out, is reporting on this case, as the MSM seem to be conspicuous by their absence with regards to this civil trial.