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

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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........

When paraphi said none of them broke the law

That was incorrect

Then when I prove it, now it’s moving the goal post

So now we have it’s ok for them to break the law and not be charged because tommy is racist

Which is inadvertently making my point

The authorities will selectively punish or not punish people who break the law based in who they like or don’t like

If that doesn’t frighten you, your not thinking of how this could be abused in terrible ways

a reply to: oldcarpy

I’m on phone so it will take a minute but sure I will look it up

No newspaper is going to break reporting restrictions and jeapordise the case. Real journalists are trained in legal proceedings and matters, have legal representatives on side and are screened by ethics and editors prior to publication.

No newspapers broke any of the reporting restrictions in place for the trials.

First time journalist offenders are incredibly rare (last one was the Soham Murders in the 1990s) due to the lengths they go to too ensure their reporting is legal, but when it's happened the journalists and editors received fines of £300,000+ which is a lot more than just a suspended sentence

There's no law against taking photographs or collecting data for a story, that's how journalists collate their material for eventual publication once a trial has concluded if such restrictions are in place. There were no restrictions in place concealing Harris or Glitter's identity prior to conclusion of their trials. Different cases, different circumstances, different reporting restrictions, there's no comparison between the two.

a reply to: bastion

Wrong there is a law against taking photographs, as the judge said

Most of the cases that come before the higher courts do involve the taking of photographs of jurors or of defendants, but in my limited researches not all of them have done, and there appears to me to be at least grounds for supposing that it is correct that it is an offence under section 41 "to take or attempt to take in any court" by which that means not only the courtroom but also the building and the precincts, any photograph, irrespective of who that is a photograph of, and I refer in that regard to the case of the HM Solicitor General v. Cox (2016) EWHC 1241, where it would appear that at least one of the defendants in that particular case had been taking photographs in court but not of a particular party.

www.judiciary.uk...

a reply to: Grambler

The authorities will selectively punish or not punish people who break the law based in who they like or don’t like

Actually, they have to make an assessment whether to prosecute based on a number of factors, one of which is whether it is in the public interest:

Code for Crown Prosecutors

All Courts in England and Wales have prominent notices displayed warning that it is an offence to take photos or make recordings inside the Courtroom. It's also a hanging offence to not turn off your mobile phone. God help you if it goes off in Court.

a reply to: Grambler

That's taking photos or filming inside a court. Name one journalist who's ever done that. It never happens. Read the law and the judges comments- it stipulates 'take or attempt to take photographs or recordings..., with the intention of publication' which is exactly what I said about their being no law collecting data prior to publification. For reporting and broadcast restrictions to be breached requires actual publishing or an attempt to publish such data prior to restrictions being lifted.

The perimeter of the court for public and private extends five feet from the courthouse entrance, as is identified by a white rectangle painted outside (to mark red hand rule area) journalists and photographers are outside this exclusion zone.

So, it's technically an offence to take photos in court but at one end of the scale is taking photos inside the building of nothing of any particular significance and then there's things like taking photos/videos of defendants when reporting restrictions are in place and broadcasting them to 1.2 million people sort of thing at the other end of the scale.

The former may well involve a severe telling off by the Judge (ie a judicial bollocking)and the latter, well, the book gets thrown.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

Please dont indulge i9n argument from authority! Do you realise the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four were also represented by senior councils? So what? dint stop oa rigged system fitting them up did it?

a reply to: bastion

Tommy did not film inside the court

He was outside

The judge says in the statement I linked he thinks the law also means filming outside the court is illegal

a reply to: Grambler

He filmed the defendants outside court which was against the court reporting restrictions for those particular series of linked cases. He broadcast himself breaking the reporting restrictions live.

His previous conviction for contempt was due to Tommy filming inside a court from the public gallery hence confusion there.

No as the judge explains it's in the court buildings as a whole and not just the particular courtroom where one single trial is taking place. Tommy was stood within the 5ft perimeter, filmed inside the court building reception for a short time (what the judge is getting at).

a reply to: bastion

Again, in the judges own words which I posted, filming outside the court is illegal as it’s within the precinct of the court

He also says the law says it is illegal to film jurors, defendants l, or a judge

Not just in this trial, but any

Now as I have showed, people film outside of court, even the defendants, regularly

Yet they are not charged

originally posted by: bastion
No newspaper is going to break reporting restrictions and jeapordise the case. Real journalists are trained in legal proceedings and matters, have legal representatives on side and are screened by ethics and editors prior to publication.

How come then about FIVE journalists have been found in contempt in the past 50 or so years? and the worst they got was a £5000 fine.

No newspapers broke any of the reporting restrictions in place for the trials.

If that is true then tommy robinson didnt break them because he read from them. In fact even if it is false and they ARE in contempt TR reading from them STILL isnt contempt.

There's no law against taking photographs or collecting data for a story, that's how journalists collate their material for eventual publication once a trial has concluded if such restrictions are in place. There were no restrictions in place concealing Harris or Glitter's identity prior to conclusion of their trials. Different cases, different circumstances, different reporting restrictions, there's no comparison between the two.

there were no reporting restrictions in the court system when tommy robinson asked and the court admitted that.

www.judiciary.uk...
paragraph 35

As a matter of fact, the RRO was not displayed or mentioned on the noticeboard or
Xhibit screen in the Reception area, or on the courtroom screen, or on the door of the
courtroom (as is common practice in some courts), or on CourtServe. The undisputed
evidence of Ms Dunderdale is that the RRO had been uploaded to the Digital Case
System (“DCS”) on 20 March 2018. It was thus readily available to the legal
professionals and anyone else with authorised access to the DCS
...
e evidence suggests, however, and we find, that two months after the
order was made the relevant information had not been inputted into CREST. This is a
regrettable departure from standard practice, which is accurately described in the
guidance issued by the Judicial College (Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
2015 (revised May 2016)) at para 5.1:

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

www.judiciary.uk...
Para 45 Mr Caldecott argues that the actus reus of this offence is committed by the reporting in
and of itself.

But this is only true if the actus reus constitute material evidence as to contempt. So the question her is whether for examnple “the alleged perpetrators are in court today and people needto know what is going on, people need to know these court cases are happening" is EVIDENCE of contempt under the section 4(2) Order

HOW is announcing that people are on trial for child grooming in any way afecting the process of that trial?
" You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked
into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape,
prostitution… "

How is saying that affecting the process of the trial or the jury?
"[p11] I’m on a suspended sentence, suspended prison sentence
which was supposed to be to prevent me or deter me from
reporting on these sort of cases."

How is saying that breaching any order about not reporting on the details or process of the trial?

" in this case there’s 29 perpetrators, 2 women, 2 Muslim
women on this trial. Not this part but they’re on part of this 29
trial, 2 Muslim women. All of them are alleged to have been
involved so all of them are innocent until proven guilty and 30%
of them, if you’re just joining us, are called Mohammed. They
are from majority Pakistani community of Huddersfield and
these rapes happened between 2004 and 2011. So today’s the
verdict, I believe the jury went out yesterday to decide. "

How is reading out this information which TR got from publicly available sources affecting the process or jury?
[p24] There’s a grooming court case going on, there’s 29 people
on charge, 10 of them are up for verdict today. [male bystander]
What are they charged for? [Respondent] Raping girls as young
as 11, 18 girls….
… are part of this trial … So yeah I’m here to report to let people
know these Court cases are going on …
[p39] “[male bystander] What’s going on here?... Paedophiles?
[Respondent] Yeah 29 of them on trial, 2 women for grooming
11-year olds, well allegedly grooming 11-year olds.”

Now saying 29 pedophiles on trial for pedophilia MIGHT be suggesting that they are guilty. thats the worst TR did but how is it in any way affecting the process or outcome of the trial?

originally posted by: bartconnolly

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

Please dont indulge i9n argument from authority! Do you realise the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four were also represented by senior councils? So what? dint stop oa rigged system fitting them up did it?

Merely pointing out that SY-L's legal team probably had a bit more knowledge and experience of the applicable law and representing clients in court than some random on the internet that has done some Googling. Do you have any legal qualification(s), m'learned friend?

Yes, I do know a bit about those cases. Things have changed a lot since 1975.

a reply to: Grambler

Now as I have showed, people film outside of court, even the defendants, regularly Yet they are not charged

As already explained to you, the criteria for bringing prosecutions are as set out in the CPS Guide, which I linked to for you. If you read it you will find the answers.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

Do you have any legal qualification(s), m'learned friend?

Actually I do but not in criminal law. Nor do I argue from authority.One of the best courtroom operators I have witnessed is Eric Brandt. He has no legal qualifications. He has dismantled police, lawyers and even judges in court and not lost in over 90 cases now.

Here is an example: www.youtube.com...

a reply to: bartconnolly


The legal system over here is a lot different to the US system. Mr Brandt would be a bit of a fish out of water over here. The SY-L case turned not so much on the facts as on pretty dry points of law and with all due respect to yourself his legal team probably knew a bit more about the relevant law than your good self. You might call that arguing from authority, I call it a self evident fact.

Do you think his legal team were rubbish?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bastion

Again, in the judges own words which I posted, filming outside the court is illegal as it’s within the precinct of the court

He also says the law says it is illegal to film jurors, defendants l, or a judge

Not just in this trial, but any

Now as I have showed, people film outside of court, even the defendants, regularly

Yet they are not charged

There are a lot of different degrees of seriousness in these offences depending on the particular facts of every case under the applicable law, which is set out in the Judgment, here:

Secondly, there is the creation and publication of images of people in the court, the court building, or in its precincts. Since 1925, this has been regulated by statute. The Criminal Justice Act 1925 s 41(1) provides, in its amended form, as follows: “41.— Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court. (1) No person shall— (a) take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or (b) publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof; … (2) For the purposes of this section— … (c) a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court-room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.” We have emphasised the wording that is of particular relevance to the present case. It is generally considered that someone who records moving images “take[s] ... a photograph” within the meaning of these provisions: see Arlidge Eady & Smith on Contempt, 5th ed, para 10-216. This is a summary-only offence, carrying a maximum penalty of a fine at Level 3 on the standard scale. It is however clear law that acts which contravene s 41 can, in appropriate cases, amount to contempt of court, exposing the wrongdoer to the more severe sanctions available in that jurisdiction, including committal: see Solicitor General v Cox [2016] 2 Cr. App. R. 15. Given the terms of s 41(2)(c), there is therefore a potential for overlap between this and the first category

You are not making any distinction about the relative degree of seriousness of such offences nor have you apparently taken on board how the CPS deals with prosecuting (or not prosecuting) cases as set out in the CPS Guide that I flagged up for you.

Things are not as black and white in the real world, as you like to make out. There are lots of shades inbetween.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Do you think his legal team were rubbish?

Robinson had the benefit of being represented by high class (paid) legal team, including people like Richard Kovalevsky QC. I am sure that if things were flawed or questionable they would have made that known. As it is, Robinson did not contest the accussions - only the outcome.

Ah, I see that there are a few members of ATS who are barristers incognito, and experts in English criminal law?