High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

Suppose Tommy 10 names could not really be more ironic than requesting to become a refugee.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bartconnolly

So they now try him for the SAME CONTEMPT EVENT AGAIN but say it was incitement of a gang to siege the court ( which is odd because in spite of having 1 million facebook followers and the most active followers group in the UK NOT ONE arrived at that court that day OR ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT DAY to attack the rapists. Probably because he did not incite them to do it! )

Please read the Judgment which makes it very clear why the AG was applying for him to be committed - not charged.
He was not being tried again. Also, this:

At another point, the respondent incited viewers to harass the criminal defendants. The words relied on are:“ You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”

Yes he was being tried for what he said and did outside the court. Originally they made a hames of it. due process was a mess and they couldnt get that to stick. also the judge put a gagging order on his ADMISSION that tommy robinsion had not prejudiced the jury - the very thing for which he was committed and which the press ( and the secret Barrister) reported as the reason he was committed. although since NO ONE since WWII was ever committed to prison one wonders WHY TR got over a year !

You need to see the video because this NEW point about tommy Robinson inciting a crowd to attack defendants is WRONG! Clearly and transparently Wring! i can show you the video. It is a clip of about a minute in about an hour long video. Tommy Robinson is referring to an austrian guy I think. tommy robinson says he is going to interview this guy who is leader of "Generation Identity" I think it is called BECAUSE THE MEDIA are hounding this guy and misreportin on him and harassing his family and knocking on their doors. He then says “ You want to harass someone’s family?..."
YOU = the Media harassing the family of the Generation Identity leader!
It is clear from the clip A 30 second clip . LOOK AT IT! Is tommy referring to the MEDIA treatment of the Leader of Generation Identity or not?
youtu.be...
The meaning is clear . He was discussing the PRESS harassing the leader of Generation Identity and why instead dont they report child rapists?

"You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?"

THIS FABRICATION is what they will send TR to prison for! Having tried to HIDE a false jury tampering issue they looked for a DIFFERENT accusation of the same alleged contempt which had been thrown out and re entered it as a different accusation for the same charge! They took a comment about the media harassing the leader of Generation Identity
and TR suggesting why dont the media harass child rapists and morphed it into the CLEARLY FABRICATED which no jury would accept as true allegation that TR was talking to his own followers and asking them to harass people going into court.
and based on this FABRICATION they will send him to prison for 2 years! It is a total miscarriage of Justice!

a reply to: bartconnolly

Just no, really. Again, read the Judgment and try to understand it.

a reply to: oldcarpy

WHERE did TR p[lead guilty to contempt! You are reading the press reports. go by the trial transcript. He was not given a defence or a plea. He was incarcerated WITHOUT a plea/ thi is in the doccuments sent to the Recorder of London who promptly got shut of this politically motivated and handed it back to the AG - the GOVERNMENT APPOINTED legal representative for the Government. the AG was then aware of all the due process problems and so concocted NEW charges because the OLDER charges to do with the events could not be construed to be contempt. HOWEVER even these NEW charges i.e. the one about inciting his followers to attack defendents are transparantly FABRICATED. Look at the video and see:
youtu.be...

a reply to: bartconnolly

I'm not looking at a Youtube video, I am quoting from the actual Judgment - here:

www.judiciary.uk...

See:

On 8 May 2017, the respondent attended the Crown Court at Canterbury, at a time when a jury had been sent out to consider their verdicts at the end of a trial (unrelated to the Huddersfield charges) in which four defendants were accused of rape. The respondent filmed himself on the steps of the court building and inside the building, including two pieces to camera in which he described the trial as involving “Muslim child rapists”. He then published the footage on the internet. At a hearing on 22 May 2017, when he was represented by Leading and Junior Counsel, the respondent admitted contempt by filming in the precincts of the court. For this contempt, he was committed to a term of three months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. Leeds

On 16 April 2018, the Akhtar trial began, before HHJ Marson QC and a jury. There were originally 10 defendants. On Thursday 24 May 2018, the jury were sent out to Draft 9 July 2019 10:45 Page 3 High Court Unapproved Judgment: AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (Admin) No permission is granted to copy or use in court consider their verdicts. By this time there were 9 remaining defendants. On the morning of Friday 25 May 2018, the respondent attended the Court. He spoke to Court staff. He was filmed speaking about the case, and speaking to some of the defendants. The video was live-streamed. Later that same day, the respondent came before HHJ Marson accused of contempt of Court. The Judge adopted a summary procedure. The respondent took advice from Counsel, and admitted contempt. Counsel mitigated on his behalf. It was accepted that “he was aware there was a reporting restriction”, but Counsel submitted that there was mitigation that would “allow [the Judge] to draw back from the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence.” The Judge was not persuaded, and committed him to prison for 10 months, simultaneously activating the suspended order imposed at Canterbury, which was made consecutive. The respondent was therefore committed to prison for a period of 13 months.

Etc. Got it?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bartconnolly

Just no, really. Again, read the Judgment and try to understand it.

www.judiciary.uk...

the Attorney General alleges that the respondent’s conduct amounted to
contempt of court in three different respects. First, the online publication involved a
breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2)
of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar
trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials. Secondly, the Attorney
General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk
that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby
amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”.
Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at Court,
doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with
the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the
onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.

1 Section 4(2) opf the Contempt of court act does not apply! BECAUSE www.legislation.gov.uk...
Section 4(1) the Preceeding paragraph says:

Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.

Tommy robinson quoted a BBC REPORT published contemporaneously !
Section 4(1) rules out section 4(2) applying.
If you can show TR said something not from a published source then where is it?

2.

the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk
that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby
amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”.

1 doient apply and 2. the court ALREADY RULED when under its own gagging order that TRs comments did not prejudice any trial or any jury. this is why the contempt accusation was already dropped.
3.

by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at Court,
doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with
the due administration of justice.

Tommy Robinson did nothing that Lissie deardon or others do not continue to to to TR ot others. And the idea that he was inciting his followers when he was clearly referring to the Mainstream media is FABRICATED!

So WHAT IN THE JUDGEMENT are you saying proves contempt?
In fact people WILL HOLD THE JUSTICE SYSTEM in contempt if this verdict is accepted!

a reply to: oldcarpy

On 8 May 2017, is a DIFFERENT CASE from a YEAR EARLIER ! got it?

After this TR got TRAINING and clearly learned from it by his DIFFERENT behaviour in Leeds! He didnt call them "muslim rapists" in Leeds so the quote you are using does not relate to the alleged event of contempt! Got it?

On the morning of Friday 25 May 2018, the respondent attended the Court. He spoke to Court staff. He was filmed speaking about the case, and speaking to some of the defendants. The video was live-streamed. Later that same day, the respondent came before HHJ Marson accused of contempt of Court. The Judge adopted a summary procedure. The respondent took advice from Counsel, and admitted contempt. Counsel mitigated on his behalf. It was accepted that “he was aware there was a reporting restriction”, but Counsel submitted that there was mitigation that would “allow [the Judge] to draw back from the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence.”

As the later court rules this was not in accordance with due process so this procedure including the admission of contempt does not constitute evidence or legal precedent as the High court rules it was not in order. So the fact that TR may have pled guilty when told to do so under a failed and illegal process is inadmissible as grounds.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Note these are REASONS the IRA commit terrorist acts. This is not a justification for such acts it is just suggesting these are the reasons

The Provisional IRA existed to ...

Waffle about the IRA isnt dealing with the point I raised. the point was whether or not you justify the IRA somebody says they have REASONS for violence. Rather than reacting to their violence, if you remove their reasons then you remove the violence. Likewise people are reacting to Tommy Robinson but the REASON TR is doing what he is doing is because of inaction on rape gangs and failure to accept these are ISLAMIC in nature.

There is not much that is similar in circumstance between gangs of culturally backward Pakistanis abusing vulnerable white girls, and armed thugs blowing up a pub.

the IRA did much more than blowing up pubs. They did a wide variety of violent acts.
What is similar AND WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE that i am raising is AND YOU ARE DOING THIS YOURSELF you are focusing on the symptoms rather than the causes. If the IRA did something for WHAT REASON did they do it? then you go and remove that reason! If a gang of Pakistani (I see what you did there... or Algerian in France or Moroccan in Belgium so it isnt the country or the continent. what ELSE do Algeria Morocco and Pakistan have in common? ) Muslims do something what is it in their culture that is a REASON for doing it?
Tommy robinson suggests child/adult sex is an accepted think in Islam. and there are Islamic scriptures supporting that Mohammad had a six year old wife aisha when he was 51 and had full sex with her when she was noine and he was 54. There isd huge Islamic scriptural support for this and it is established in Sharia.
Do you deny Tommy robinson is correct in his assertion that Islamic scriptures support this idea?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

youre assuming they didn’t break the law because they weren’t charged. This is exactly what I am criticizing. Selective application of laws, and people show the fact people weren’t charged as proof they were innocent

Because they were not on a suspended sentence for previous contempt?

If they broke the law, then they should have been given a suspended sentence at least then

Were any of them?

a reply to: oldcarpy
www.bailii.org...
Paragraph 83:

There was no clarity about what parts of the video were relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced.

and where is it now? What did TR do that amounted to contempt?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bartconnolly


I appreciate that to non-lawyers Judgments like this can be a bit impenetrable (they are to lawyers quite often!) but you have misunderstood the process.

I havent misunderstood the process the court ALREADY DECIDED that they didnt follow their own process and that is one reason why they threw the earlier contempt out
www.judiciary.uk...

PARAGRAPH 42 (8)

At another point, the respondent incited viewers to harass the criminal defendants.
The words relied on are:-
“You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who
was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who
faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him,
find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works,
see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call
people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”

this is the substantive issue!
This is a FABRICATION because the video is clearly referring to that THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA was doing to the the leader of Generation Identity!
"YOU" is clearly the media! NOT his supporters! and that is quite clear by the video. and luckily oit went viral and was preserved because otherwise they would concoct a fabricated accusation which ANYONE can see for what it is!


Do you accept TR was referring to the Media or are you assretting the AG is correct he was inciting his followers to accost and molest people on their way to court?

a reply to: bartconnolly

Do you not realise that SY-L was represented by a team of highly experienced lawyers led by Richard Furlong QC? I think that they know a bit more about the applicable law and procedure than you do.

a reply to: Grambler

I think you know the answer to that.

a reply to: bartconnolly

1 Section 4(2) opf the Contempt of court act does not apply! BECAUSE www.legislation.gov.uk... Section 4(1) the Preceeding paragraph says: Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith. Tommy robinson quoted a BBC REPORT published contemporaneously ! Section 4(1) rules out section 4(2) applying. If you can show TR said something not from a published source then where is it?

If only SY-L's defence lawyers were as on the ball about these things as you! Why don't you email someone from his defence team and put them straight? I am sure they will be kicking themselves.

But they won't, will they, because you have no idea what you are talking about whereas they did and do.

originally posted by: Grambler
Were any of them?

Surely, did any of them break the law?

It's a rhetorical question, because they did not.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Grambler
Were any of them?

Surely, did any of them break the law?

It's a rhetorical question, because they did not.

The judge admitted that the law in photography in and around courts is broken all the time

So yes, they did break the law, and were not punished

a reply to: Grambler

Hardly on a par with what SY-L did though, is it?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

Hardly on a par with what SY-L did though, is it?

Again the goal posts move

That poster said no one else broke the law. Yes they did

Tommy was in a suspended sentence, so it makes sense his punishment would be harsher if he broke the law. That makes sense

However, these others that broke the law should have at least been treated the way tommy was when he first broke the law, and given a suspended sentence

Yet none of them were, because the system decided to selectively apply the law

a reply to: Grambler

Where have the goal posts moved to?

Maybe racist idiots get whats coming to them?

Yes, I know, he's not a racist........

a reply to: Grambler

The judge admitted that the law in photography in and around courts is broken all the time

So that I can see the context, can you post a link to what the Judge said? Thanks in advance.