Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Tommy Robinson: judge Nicholas Hillard refers contempt of court case back to the attorney general, yesterday in London, Tommy Robinson declared the press ‘the enemies of the people’ to loud cheers, the hatred by some press people online shows how clouded their judgement is, and doing it publicly garners more support for Robinson!, all we need is a Rumpole of the Bailey and this case would be complete

Dear All

The Tommy Robinson case has become a circus, who would have thought when Robinson was wrongly put in prison that we would see a snowball effect which puts the establishment of trial.

So, what is the problem in the Tommy Robinson case?

It basically is this, there isn’t any evidence that he committed contempt of court, and to add insult to injury, there is plenty of evidence that he was treated unfairly, and treated badly in prison prior to his release. Such is the concern about this case that the new judge at the Old Bailey has referred this contempt case back to the attorney general. Apparently this case is too complex for Nicholas Hilliard, the recorder of London; you may find this an eye opener given his bio.

This isn’t any newbie judge, but the task for Nicholas Hillard is how to put a square peg in a round hole and make it look professional. If he is any good at Law, he would know that this case is a loser. I suspect he does hence he has kicked this case back into the long grass and offloading this to the attorney general. In this case, the establishment have lost badly even before the latest attempt at getting a second guilty verdict.

In what must be a seen as a smart move, the decision to refer the case to the attorney general would allow Robinson’s contempt charges to be heard in a proper adversarial setting, in which a lawyer could present evidence and question witnesses to make the case.

Hillard said he had made the decision after receiving a statement from Robinson on Monday in which he proposed to give evidence in his own defence. Here is a link to his statement.

You should take the time to read it.

Yesterday; Tommy Robinson walked free from Court, but prior to going in he address a large crowd, in which he called the press, the ‘enemies of the people’. This apparently upset a few media punters and as you can see from twitter, the press was none too pleased about the fact he isn’t in jail.

Hannah isn’t happy and she works at the Guardian and Observer.

Sunny Hundal isn’t happy.

Kevin McGuire isn’t happy.

However, the prize for being most upset goes to Dr Louise Raw.

Louise works for the BBC, a historian at BBC Radio London no less.

In rush to judgement and getting out the burning cross, what seems to be lost to these people is that an important legal point is being made, take out Robinson, and look at the issues. It seems to me that evidence for some doesn’t matter; they want Tommy Robinson in jail because it fits their narrative.

Judge Hilliard said:

“It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the nature and extent of the controversy to be considered emerged far more clearly from that statement [provided by Robinson] than ever before. It may be necessary to look at quite a lot of the detail of what Mr Yaxley-Lennon said in the broadcast [featuring the alleged contempt] as to come to the overall picture as to what happened. I’m satisfied in the light of the issues as they now appear, as they emerged from the statement of yesterday, that cross-examination of Mr Yaxley-Lennon is necessary for a proper and thorough examination and resolution of the case that is in the public interest.”

Hillard made the right decision; this case is within the realm of the public interest. Although this case is serious, you can find quite a bit of humour looking at what some people are saying, like Otto English.

“So fresh from his court appearance - Tommy Robinson dines on a 3 course meal in the House of Lords before being driven back to his million pound gated Bedfordshire pile. Meanwhile his hapless followers - still clutching those cans - drift home - comforted that they've funded him.

People like Otto English are part of the reason why ordinary working class people support Tommy Robinson, the contempt he shows when he writes about Robinson’s ‘hapless followers’ is why people turn away from the political class and their helpers in the press.

If I was the attorney general, I wouldn’t keep digging a hole, this case is a loser, it was lost the minute the Police arrested Tommy Robinson on a charge of breach of the peace. That lie was used to slap him in handcuffs in order to put him through a kangaroo court where evidence didn’t matter or Robinson’s rights. What we could be looking at is the most important case to come to the Old Bailey which could change the way that the law is applied relating to contempt of court. Forget Robinson look at the evidence, sadly it is something which seems to be getting lost in the rush to jail him.

Finally, to show how desperate some people are to get him on anything; Section 41 of the Criminal Justice act 1925 makes it an offence to photograph people within court precincts. City of London police have said they are looking into whether any offences were committed at Robinson’s September court appearance. Given Robinson was put in a private room prior to going into court, no one is going to get a conviction out of that, talk about grasping at straws!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University


Al C said...

It's a rum (i.e. shite) state of affairs when the same chattering classes responded to his Al Mujahiroun counterparts as:

1) 'Oh the words of an attention seeker, it's the press's fault for giving this tiny minority oxygen',

2) 'There's no difference between the two' (I don't like the EDL but there is, and the EDL were created in response to Al Mujahiroun)

3) 'It's blowback from Iraq etc' (implying that suicide bombing victims deserve their fate whether it's intended or not)

4) 'Their free speech is our free speech' (Yet the same people like to 'no-platform anyone they like with the excuse of "democracy in free speech" which makes no sense)

5) Or, better still: 'we're not going to criticise them or we'll encourage the far right' (which is stupid, because all you do is grow a spine, oppose Al Muj on humanitarian grounds, tell Muslims you're still on their side, and tell the far right to sod off, it doesn't require an IQ of 150 to do that).

And yet, at the same time, these lessons of 'don't give the extremists coverage' was forgotten in the wake of their arch-nemesis, Mr Donald J Trump, against whom they proved ineffective and utterly, shamefully useless. And again, they seem to be forgetting the same lesson that they told everyone else, once again.

Anyone willing to hedge their bets on Tommy Robinson becoming the next Donald Trump?

Anonymous said...


Law should be blind not blinkered, this case does raise issues as you mention in this article.


Anonymous said...

tommy is on the rise