Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by Eddy, 11 Jul 2019.
or just rich
@Pale Rider have you read the court's reasons which I linked to above?
The first few pages set out the procedural history and it's grossly inaccurate to portray what happened as a circuit judge in Leeds backed up by his judgly mates in London. The Court of Criminal Appeal was quite critical of HHJ Marson and the way he approached his task. They set his sentence aside and subsequently the conviction as well, ordering a re-trial before the Recorder of London. Subsequent steps and emergence of differences over facts led to case being conducted before the President of the Queens Bench Division and another judge on proceedings brought by the Attorney General.
If you read the Court's reasons at page 13 you can see how and why inciting harassment is an issue. It's also absolutely clear that the defendants in the abuse etc cases used SYL's actions to try and get the trial stopped. As it happened neither trial judge nor Court of Criminal Appeal allowed this. It could though easily have resulted in case being discharged and a re-trial at vast expense or defendant walking.
Yes of course you could put it in front of a jury if the law were reformed to allow Contempt to be tried in that way. But if you choose to try an portray what happened to SYL as summary justice then summary justice from two experienced senior judges (Brian Leveson's successor as President of QBD is one of them) then it's an altogether better class of summary judgement then you'd get from a Lay Bench in the Mags Court. There's 31 pages of properly written reasons for a start.
There may be case for reforming how we look at contempt but I don't think events around SYL's reportage are much of am example to justify reform. He's banged to rights. End of.
I really don't know why you're trying to make excuses for SYLeither. It wasn't even as if this was his first encounter with consequences of messing around on court precincts.
Answers on a postcard?
What Robinson did caused no prejudice to any defendant.
We do not sentence in this country on what could or might have happened.
Whatever that High Court judge says, Robinson was jailed for contempt of court, not incitement.
You - and I - may not agree with Robinson's rhetoric but we do not want a situation in this country in which a couple of judges decide what can and cannot be said in public.
In case anyone is confused about the SYL thing, this is trying to shut up a journalist
SYL's case isn't.
We have plenty of statutory offences to deal with stuff that could or might happen - careless/dangerous driving for example.
And let me ask again, have you read the thirty one pages of reasons?
If you drive dangerously, you are sentenced for driving dangerously, not on the basis you could have killed another road user.
If you kill another road user you are sentenced (more heavily) for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Lock Robinson up by all means, but we don't have an offence of being a nasty pasty so we need to nick him for something substantial.
Breaching a court order doing no harm is a bit of a weedy excuse, although as you pointed out Robinson was on a suspended sentence for something similar.
Cases aren't strictly comparable, but the barrister (and keen cyclist) Robert Mochrie took a photograph of himself with a sex case defendant on court premises.
Taking photos in court is illegal, no question.
I'll leave you to guess what happened to Mr Mochrie.
He was jailed for contempt of court. Whether or not it did any harm is irrelevant. It could have done. Likewise with dangerous driving etc.
Been waiting for Stewart Lee’s piece in the Grauniad today to update you all on BJ’s full name....
Boris Piccaninny Watermelon Letterbox Cake Bumboys Vampires Haircut Inconclusive-Cocaine-Event Wall-Spaffer Spunk-Burster fark-Business fark-The-Families Get-Off-My-farking-Laptop Turds Johnson
I'm curious about SYL's claim the being 'convicted of journalism': does he have the support of his union, the NUJ?
If there's really a case here of a journalist being wrongly convicted and oppressed for doing his job, they'll be making a huge fuss over the threat to freedom of the press, right? Where is it then?
Outside the Peoples' Vote rally in Leeds two or three weeks ago, there was quite a queue to get in.
Whilst we were queueing, there were two people who constantly filmed us in the queue, using mobiles.
Anyroad, one of them wore a body camera over a high viz which proclaimed him to be a 'Press Photographer', and his chum wore a face covering ski mask, covering his face from the eyes down. As you do when it's over 20 degrees , bright and sunny... There wasn't a 'proper' camera in sight - just the body cam and mobiles. I know I'm a suspicious old fool, but I had my doubts over their motivations...
No, there were two uniformed police officers strolling about - these two were not plain clothes police 'gathering info' by any means.
The offence of dangerous driving exists to deter people from driving dangerously in a way which might cause 'accidents'. The offence of contempt exists to deter people from acting in ways which might cause prejudice to ongoing proceedings. In either case the gravity of the offending will be a factor in sentencing. In either case gravity of offending will increase and further offences may be charged if which 'might cause' becomes 'caused'.
Mr Mochrie's offending, posing with a once famous acquitted defendant, presumably falls below the charging threshold. That though may not be enough to save him from a reprimand from the Bar.
Let me try again, have you read the court's reasons?
I'm actually glad that SYL goes by the name Tommy Robinson... because every time anyone asks me what I think of Tommy Robinson, my stock reply is "I prefer Tom Robinson"
Separate names with a comma.