Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 100 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 991

Thread: Tommy Robinson; "working class hero" unlawfully imprisoned, now released

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Tommy Robinson; "working class hero" unlawfully imprisoned, now released

    The question of whether TR ever pleaded guilty or not to "contempt of court" at Leeds seems to be finally answered in the transcript of the appeal judgement.
    The original judge never actually pinned down what his "contempt" was supposed to be exactly, therefore TR could not possibly have said one way or another whether he agreed with the accusation. The barrister supposedly representing TR at the time (not TRs own lawyer, but one hastily appointed by the court) did not object to these vague accusations being made, and that was then taken by the judge as "an admission of guilt". So then the judge (presumably this was the same "window peeking" judge who had been watching TR out on the street outside the court) just proceeded "as if" TR had already agreed he was guilty of something.
    That was way out of order.
    23. In considering the appropriate punishment, the judge proceeded on the basis that the appellant had admitted his contempt. He continued:"This morning, well knowing that the jury in this trial were in retirement and well knowing that there was a prohibition on publication because you referred to it in your video, you stood outside this building...
    So a guy standing on the public street, and reading from a local newspaper is deemed somehow to be in contempt of a court sitting nearby. Then snatched from the street and summarily imprisoned.

    Now we hear what the UK's top lawyer Lord Chief Justice Burnett has to say...
    28.
    Even in cases where a court considers it necessary to proceed summarily to deal with a contempt it is often wise, having sorted out the immediate concern, to adjourn the contempt hearing to a later date and sometimes before a different judge.
    That avoids any question of the judge being judge in his own cause. In most cases concerning an interference with the public course of justice, the judge will refer the matter to the Attorney General.
    and....
    64.In this case, no particulars of the scope of the alleged contempt were ever formulated, let alone in writing, or put to the appellant. With respect to all those involved in the hearing, there was some muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered, not only in the short exchanges which represented such formulation as there was, but also in the sentencing remarks.
    ...It is entirely unclear what aspects of the video the appellant, through his counsel, was accepting amounted to contempt in that regard.
    The window peeker seems to have had a sudden rush of blood to the head, and had TR arrested simply for being TR. For generally talking about religion and ethnicity, which the judge regarded as being "offensive"
    However, in his sentencing remarks the judge made specific reference to the appellant’s generic comments during the course of his broadcast about his perception of the role of religion and ethnicity offending in nature alleged in the case in progress.
    Doubtless, these comments were, at least potentially, capable of amounting to a free standing contempt of court but they were not in any sense a report on the proceedings themselves.
    So there you have it. The LCJ thinks TR has the right to express his views on the street outside a court. Yes folks, its called Free Speech. And whether the judge peeking out the window agrees or disagrees with those views, or is offended, is entirely irrelevant. If he thought the views amounted to "hate speech" he should have made a complaint to the police.

    And most damning of all, neither was it something that should have activated the previous "contempt of court" sentence suspended from Canterbury court one year earlier....
    65 But, in our view, it is clear from the remarks of the judge that he was concerned with, and sentenced for, comments made by the appellant which could not have been covered by the section 4(2) order.
    Then we have the stitch-up which resulted in TR receiving much harsher prison conditions than he should have been afforded, even if he had beens guilty of contempt. TR was treated as a criminal, when in fact no crime had been committed.
    In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.
    When the court wrongly classified TR as a convict (deliberately?) the prison staff were later obliged to withdraw certain privileges that a prison inmate who was inside for the much lesser "contempt of court" charge would expect to receive.
    74. Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits and the sending and receipt of letters.
    There are some very serious flaws uncovered here. Its was a real miscarriage of justice.
    77. In summary, the finding of contempt made in Leeds must be quashed because:
    (1) It was inappropriate to proceed immediately on the motion of the court to deal with the alleged contempt after immediate steps had been taken to remove the offending video from the internet. An adjournment was necessary to enable the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any event
    (ii) The failure to comply with Part 48 of the Rules resulted in
    there being no clear statement, orally or in writing, of the conduct said to comprise a contempt for
    contravening the section 4(2) order in place;
    (iii) It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and
    the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of
    that order;
    (iv) The haste with which the contempt proceedings were conducted led to an
    inability of counsel to mitigate fully on the appellant's behalf.
    78. The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall
    away.
    So even though this case will be tried again later, all the above serious shortfalls would have to be addressed if TR is to be found guilty of contempt of court "again". If it turns out, as seems likely, that he did not deserve the treatment he got, then he will be entitled to a large compo payment.

  2. #2

    Default

    Is Tommy due to face the Electric-Chair for downloading an ABBA album ?

    cheered on by loads of eejits on here who shout ''guilty, guilty, he really did download the album without paying the royalties to Benny and Bjorn''.


    nothing would surprise me anymore.
    Last edited by Spirit Of Newgrange; 6th August 2018 at 01:07 PM.
    How about gender-balance in immigration into ireland ? Is it currently 40 blokes arriving for every 1 woman arriving on these shores ?

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The Secret Barrister whose blog was oft quoted in the previous TR thread as gospel is now obliged to eat humble pie.
    But you have to scroll waaaay down to the bottom of the blog to see it.
    14. This shows that you know NOTHING, fake barrister. You were wrong, weren’t you?

    Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not. There were alternatives open to the judge which should have been explored. There were also obvious failings to abide by the procedural rules, although I would plead in mitigation that none of that information was available at the time....... blah blah blah...

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Of Newgrange View Post
    Is Tommy due to face the electric Chair for downloading an ABBA album ?

    nothing would surprise me anymore.
    No, I'm guessing he will eventually be awarded a large compensation payment due to the unlawful imprisonment, and the extra harsh conditions that were imposed on him there.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    5,526
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I still haven't seen an outline of the offence that tommy was alleged to have committed. It's all very ambiguous. If he breached the order, let's hear in detail what he allegedly did.

    Are we are living in a police statem Forbidden from discussions and debate by threat of imprisonment and the treatment that tommy received?

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member USER1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,351
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Could you please try and search before Making a new topic, there's been a thread about this for a while now

    Can a mod please merge this thread with the pre-existing one!
    Last edited by USER1234; 6th August 2018 at 12:17 AM.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Basically, the judge at a trial of muslim paedophile rape gang members had imposed a news blackout of the court proceedings.
    TR, not being a man for watching this kind of thing swept under the carpet, was outside on the street conducting a livestream blog into his phone. He was not reporting on what was going on inside the court, because he was standing in the street outside.

    The judge was peeking out the window at him, and thought to himself "I'll have you Tommy Robinson".
    He ordered the police to snatch poor Tommy off the street and then summarily "convicted" him of contempt of court. Which is nonsensical because (a) you have to be in court and disrupting it for that and b) its not classed as a conviction anyway.

    Then the same judge ordered a news blackout on TR's arrest and kangaroo court "trial" (later overturned by a Leeds newspaper).

    This judge is now disgraced by the damning comments made in the appeal judgement.
    Far too many times TR has been stitched up by people in positions of authority who think he is fair game for their SJW fantasies.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USER1234 View Post
    Could you please try and search before Making a new topic, there's been a thread about this for a while now

    Can a mod please merge this thread with the pre-existing one!
    Old thread is full now, and obsolete. This is the new thread.

  9. #9

    Default

    if you follow the youtube work of TR you may see that he has even more anger at useless ineffective Police, Social Workers & Courts than anger against the Pakistani Muslim Rape gangs.

    so why did they throw the book at him ?
    How about gender-balance in immigration into ireland ? Is it currently 40 blokes arriving for every 1 woman arriving on these shores ?

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    926
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Because he exposes their failings.
    Shines light into some dark places.

Page 1 of 100 123451151 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •