As many of us expected, following his conviction at the Central Criminal Court on a contempt of court charge related to his filming of convicted Islamic Rape Gang defendants, Tommy Robinson has been gaoled again. This was of course a situation that many of us expected, but thankfully the sentence imposed was much shorter than some commentators expected it to be. Politico, for example, thought that the state would go hell for leather in order to ‘get Tommy’ and impose the maximum two years imprisonment, but this has not been the case. Instead he was gaoled for nine months, six months for the Leeds contempt conviction and the reactivation of a previous suspended sentence for contempt, of which he will probably serve approximately 19 weeks . This is because the Judges took into account Mr Robinson’s previous time served because of his imprisonment by Judge Marston at Leeds Crown Court and the UK government’s policy of routinely halving the length of prison sentences.
This case, heard before two High Court Judges and not a jury, as contempt of court is a quasi-criminal offence rather than a fully criminal offence, has been controversial and convoluted to say the least. The original gaoling of Mr Robinson, for a period of 13 months by Judge Marston at Leeds ended up being quashed by the Lord Chief Justice and others at an appeal hearing and a new trial on the contempt matter advised. The appeal did find that there were deficiencies in how the Leeds hearing and prison order were carried out and the case was sent to the Central Criminal Court in order to be heard in front of the Recorder of London, the Chief Justice for the City of London area. When the case got to the Recorder of London Sir Nicholas Hilliard, Mr Robinson produced evidence and a statement that may well have persuaded Sir Nicholas that there were aspects of this case that required it to go to the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC MP.
The Attorney General’s office was, in my view, unlikely to drop the case against Mr Robinson despite the hopes of many of Mr Robinson’s supporters that the Attorney General would do so. This is because in part neither the government nor the justice system could be seen to lose face by dropping such a high profile prosecution. This is not just because of who Mr Robinson is and what he does, but also I believe because of the social media culture in general. Social media has played havoc with both contempt of court laws and the sometimes necessary reporting restrictions that all jurisdictions (even the most free such as the United States) have for reasons of protecting minors, protecting vulnerable witnesses and ensuring fair trials. This case is being cited by the Attorney General’s office as being one that applies to all users of social media who may be tempted to comment on cases that have a reporting restriction attached to them.
The Robinson case may be being seen as a win-win by the political Establishment in part because a major irritant for the political class in the form of Mr Robinson been gaoled and put out of circulation for a bit. In addition, the case has shown the public the power of contempt of court legislation, that was originally written when outlets for court reporting was limited to the newspapers and a few broadcasters. It was a thoroughly different time and the case does tell the public that the contempt of court legislation applies to everyone who publishes, not just major outlets. Back then there was no livestreaming, no internet and in order to use professionally a ‘wire machine’ to send pictures required the operator to be a member of the National Graphical Association trade union. Now everyone who picks up a mobile phone can be a journalist or a reporter.
Maybe this case will cause a public debate on the subject of the transparency of justice and what restrictions on this transparency are socially and publicly acceptable. I think that many reasonable people would consider reporting restrictions on the identity of those who give testimony as minors or other vulnerable witnesses to be both fair and just. It is a more tricky question when it comes to protecting the right to fair trial. Is it reasonable for example with linked trials to have a blanket reporting restriction to avoid future jury contamination, especially in an era of mass connectivity? Also if we, quite rightly in my view, trust juries enough to deliver verdicts in criminal trials on the evidence that they have heard in court, should we not also trust juries to put aside anything that they may have previously heard about a linked trial in the media or elsewhere? Should we have a ‘free for all’ court reporting environment or will this bring many more problems than it solves? Much of the legislation that governs the reporting of court cases was written when the world was much different and as we all know, the past is so alien to many people that it might just as well be another country. Our law in this area needs looking at again with 21st century eyes, taking into account genuine concerns on all sides.
Whilst I support much of what Mr Robinson says about the dangers posed to the United Kingdom and its subjects by the ideology of Islam, this is not a ‘four legs good two legs bad’ sort of case. Of course I accept that Mr Robinson is hounded and persecuted by both the state and the mainstream media for his refusal to accept the lie that Islam is a religion of peace. However I do think that Mr Robinson did make some mistakes over all this. Firstly, in the original trial for contempt at Canterbury, Mr Robinson failed to discern which areas of the court area were considered as ‘the precincts of the court’ where cameras are not allowed and where behaviours are governed by the court’s rules. This caused him to be convicted by the Canterbury judge of contempt of court and given a three month suspended sentence.
I’ve been a court reporter and one of the first things I looked for or asked about when I went to a new court was ‘where are the boundaries of the precincts of the court?’ This is because I know what sort of shit I could have got done for, had I brandished a camera in the wrong place. It’s not pleasant to be hauled up in front of a judge to explain why I stood in the wrong place or snapped a juror in mistake for a defendant in those court buildings where there is not a separate jury members entrance. However despite saying that I have to admit that the evidence to back up the most recent charges against Mr Robinson have been, as others have said, pretty thin. The Attorney General’s office had to really twist and turn in order to bring the sort of charge that would be very difficult for the defendant to wriggle out of. This does give the impression at least that this is a politically motivated prosecution.
Mr Robinson should also not have gone to Leeds Crown Court whilst under the threat of a suspended sentence. He should have known that he is so high profile that any cock up on his part that would breach the Canterbury order would end badly for him. In effect he gave the state – a state that he knows hates him and his views and wants him silenced – a very easy target by going to cover the case of the Huddersfield Islamic Rape Gang at Leeds. It was a brave move to defy the state like this but has been mercilessly exploited both by the political Establishment, the Left and various identity politics grievance mongers. Mr Robinson is not a lone operator, he has staff to help him with his activism. It may have been more politically canny to send someone else, a clean hands person, to cover the court and keep himself one step removed from being hit with a contempt charge. Effectively, Mr Robinson walked into a trap that was all too easily sprung.
If this case has achieved one positive thing apart from causing a public debate about the transparency of our justice system, the arrest, conviction and gaoling of Mr Tommy Robinson has at least alerted the public to the scale and extent of these Islamic Rape Gang cases. The ordinary ‘Man on the Clapham Omnibus’ may have been, because of our piss poor news media, unaware of the scale of the Islamic Rape Gang problem in the UK. Because of the publicity over the Tommy Robinson case, many more Britons than before are now aware of the reasons for the reporting restrictions on linked trials. This is because these gangs are so large have a huge number of victims and are charged with such a large number of offences, that they need to be tried in batches. If nothing else, Mr Robinson’s actions at Leeds has at least highlighted the scale of an Islamic Rape Gang problem by raising awareness of the need for linked trials of these cases. Britain has a horrific Islamic sexual exploitation problem which not only encompasses the targeting by gangs of Muslim men of white British girls, but also has been a problem for Britain’s Sikh and Hindu subjects. There is also a problem with intra-communal and intra-familial abuse in Muslim communities that in my view stem from the subservient position women are placed in by the ideology of Islam.
I understand that Mr Robinson has initially been committed to Belmarsh Prison, a Category A gaol, in South East London. This is not a good place to be for a person like Mr Robinson, bearing in mind that the gaol also holds a lot of jihadist nasties and it is likely that he will have to request segregation from the prison authorities for his own safety. It is to be hoped that Mr Robinson is transferred to a safer establishment soon and political pressure should be kept up on the government to ensure his safe and humane treatment whilst incarcerated.
I’m afraid I have to take issue with Mr Robinson’s post incarceration video in which he gives the impression that anti-democratic forces need to be fought ‘with all means necessary’. I thought that this was an unfortunate choice of words that could well be misinterpreted. Now as someone who has observed Mr Robinson for a number of years I know that this man has never called directly for violence, only protest, but this phrase, ‘by any means necessary’ is too easy to misread as a call to arms literally.
Personally I don’t believe that we are at the by ‘all means necessary’ stage yet and may such a time never come to pass, as there are still other ways of proceeding when dealing with the undoubted problems that the United Kingdom faces, especially the problems brought by Islam. We are living through a time where there are political problems that need a political solution. I certainly believe that there may well come a time, possibly soon, when a distinctly and overtly anti Islamic polity rises, and it might end up much worse than anything that Mr Robinson could ever think up.
I believe that Tommy Robinson might have got a suspended sentence for the Leeds incident if it had not been for his relatively recent prior contempt issue at Canterbury. It was unlikely that in such a high profile case the judges would have gone for a further suspended sentence in this case. Let us hope that in other criminal cases, where the suspended sentence system and the provision to punish breaches is used too leniently, Judges also decide to be equally vigorous when dealing with suspended sentence breaches by robbers, burglars, car thieves and sex offenders. Too often, as the admirable blog Ambush Predator regularly points out, breaches of suspended sentences are being ignored even when they are being committed by some pretty nasty anti-social types.
Mr Robinson has got off with a relatively short sentence but it is unlikely to be a cakewalk for him. He is going to be a target and it is right that he is not forgotten by either his supporters or those concerned with his safety. I would strongly urge people to write to him as letters are a source of comfort to prisoners and as has been shown by the work of Amnesty International in the past, a prisoner, especially a political prisoner, who receives a large number of letters is less likely to be maltreated. I believe that one former political prisoner from overseas once said:’After the first thousand letters the guards gave me back my clothes, after the next thousand I stopped getting beaten and after ten thousand letters I got my freedom.’
The address to write to Mr Robinson is currently:
A2084CG – Stephen Yaxley Lennon
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
Thamesmead
London
SE28 0EB or you can use https://www.emailaprisoner quoting his name/prison/number.
What I would not advise anyone to do is to take part in any demonstration outside Belmarsh Prison. This gaol has an awfully large number of crazies incarcerated within its walls and any demonstration outside the gates is liable to send the prison into lockdown, If this happens then any visits scheduled for that day will be cancelled. Many prisoners live for their family and friends visits, they are often all they look forward to and if the visits get cancelled because of a pro-Tommy demonstration then the crazies may turn on Tommy. This sort of demo and the subsequent lockdown will also cause a nasty situation where you have angry prisoner’s relatives facing up to pro-Tommy demonstrators along with police who are pissed off by having leave cancelled in order to deal with the mess. As well as putting Tommy Robinson in harms way a demo at the prison gates would end up as a PR disaster of massive proportions. If people want to peacefully demonstrate in support of Tommy Robinson then they should do it, just not at the prison.
Although the law has taken its quite tortuous course in this case, which has been accompanied with many allegations that the case was politically motivated, the government and the political Left and political Islam are not free of the Tommy Robinson problem. Whether he emerges from prison unscathed or if something bad happens to him whilst in gaol he’s still going to be a thorn in the side to those who don’t want to see what is going on regarding Islam in the United Kingdom. When he is released his profile will be increased and the gulf between the MSM’s reporting of him and the reality will become wider. If he is, G-d forbid, martyred whilst in gaol, then all his faults will be glossed over and he will be lionised not just by his current supporters but the many additional others who will almost inevitably flock to Mr Robinson’s cause of anti-Islam post-mortem. Frankly the government have put themselves in a position where they are completely buggered where Mr Robinson is concerned. If he survives prison he’s a hero to his supporters and if he doesn’t then he’s not just a hero to his current supporters but also the new ones.
Whatever happens to Tommy Robinson the government are now one step closer to what they and the rest of the political and media establishment most fear which a mass of organic peaceful protests against the ideology of Islam and the damage it is doing to our society. It is obvious that there are not enough resources to effectively police such protests and if policed harshly will just bring in more converts from brutalised ordinary Joes in even more protest. Unless we want to see a tense situation escalate then we need a political solution to Britain’s Islam problems that recognises and is honest about the threat this ideology poses to free societies. I’d rather this honesty and acceptance of Islam’s threat be voiced in government then the sort of turmoil that may see the likes of Mr Robinson replaced with operators who are far far worse than he ever could be.
