Pray for brave Tommy.

Actually that isn't true. A person is convicted for the offence (i.e. what they did). However what they "might have done" is taken into account .For example a case of Dangerous Driving where the driver might have killed someone (i..e Prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for safety of others) may be moved from the Magistrate to the Crown Court which has much greater ability to impose a custodial sentence (remember Magistrates require no legal training, just a 12 week training course and some enthusiasm).

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

Additionally, when sentencing both Magistrate and Judge must take into account aggravating and mitigating factors such as aggressive driving etc in order to determine sentence.

Oh - and re the name thing - he uses different names, to get away with different fraudulent activities. he hasn't legally changed his name.
You are sentenced for what you did, not what you might have done.

That's why the guideline for most offences has several bands, relating to seriousness, but the same offence.

If your offence falls into band 2, you are not sentenced in band 1 because you might have committed the more serious form of the offence.

You are sentenced in band 2 - which is what you did.
 

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
You are sentenced for what you did, not what you might have done.
You keep repeating that but it's only true up to a point.

When the court considers aggravating and mitigating factors potential consequences are part of the sentencing calculation. If you drove dangerously AND with knowing disregard for potential consequence of which there was a high probability you'll go down for longer.

Have you found time to read the court's decision re SYL yet?
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Gascoigne has yet to be tried.

Whatever you say, no person is sentenced for what they might have done, they are sentenced for what they did.

Dangerous driving is merely 'driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'.

It's easy an easy enough offence to commit, there doesn't need to be a crash.

Robinson breached the order, so he's clearly guilty.

Court orders must be obeyed, even barmy ones, so one could argue the need for a deterrent sentence.
And the law should be the same for everyone, yet if you kill someone of the traveling community out of self-defence while they are trying to rob you, you have to move because of the traveling community taken the law in their own hands. If you spend all day online catching pedophiles and lure them into a trap to have them arrested you can do that do along with video documenting it.(unless you use (much) more violence than needed if at all)
So from that stance i find it kind of dubious that these monsters get protection against being filmed on the public road. There sure as hell did not gave that poor girls that protection, they closed their eyes from it instead. But Mr. Robbinson is the bad guy here, sure he broke the law but that these monsters even have this kind of protection is strange. I seriously doubt that if someone not know as being far right would have had the same sentence.
 

raleighnut

Guru
Location
On 3 Wheels
And the law should be the same for everyone, yet if you kill someone of the traveling community out of self-defence while they are trying to rob you, you have to move because of the traveling community taken the law in their own hands. If you spend all day online catching pedophiles and lure them into a trap to have them arrested you can do that do along with video documenting it.(unless you use (much) more violence than needed if at all)
So from that stance i find it kind of dubious that these monsters get protection against being filmed on the public road. There sure as hell did not gave that poor girls that protection, they closed their eyes from it instead. But Mr. Robbinson is the bad guy here, sure he broke the law but that these monsters even have this kind of protection is strange. I seriously doubt that if someone not know as being far right would have had the same sentence.
He jeopardised the case against these 'monsters' by his actions which could easily have meant they walked free FFS :cursing:
 

icowden

Senior Member
Location
Surrey
So from that stance i find it kind of dubious that these monsters get protection against being filmed on the public road.
Absolutley not dubious. UK law is very clear that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. The accused must be proven guilty at Trial either before a Judge or a Judge and Jury. This was a Jury trial. It is essential to justice that the trial not be prejudiced in any way. Until the Jury have given their verdict, whatever you think of the defendants, they must be presumed to be innocent and must be treated accordingly.

It is not for an idiotic fraudster to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. If the trial had been found to be prejudiced by Yaxley-Lennon's actions, the whole trial would have had to be cancelled at huge expense. Victims who have had to testify before the accused men would have to do so again. The potential damage that Yaxley-Lennon could have caused is huge. That is why this has been taken so seriously.

To better understand the issue flip it on its head. Lets say that this was a trial where the accused were found not guilty. Do you still think the accused should have been tried by media and thugs, their reputation destroyed, friendships broken, marriage ended etc? It is the job of the Judiciary and the Legal System to protect the innocent and ensure that when guilt is found that is is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Mistakes have been made, and will continue to have been made. People who have done terrible things have got off. Is it better that someone gets away with a crime or that someone who hasn't committed a crime is punished? The law says it is better to risk not punishing a guilty party than to punish an innocent party.
In this case, Guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the guilty are now serving at Her Majesty's pleasure, Yaxley Lennon included.
 
Last edited:

raleighnut

Guru
Location
On 3 Wheels
This. I've read some nonsense on this site but this is next level.
One of the defendants solicitors attempted to get the case dismissed on the grounds that due to adverse publicity their client would not get a fair trial, that is why the ban (that Yaxley-Lennon chose to ignore) was in place.
 

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Under the Edge
Absolutley not dubious. UK law is very clear that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. The accused must be proven guilty at Trial either before a Judge or a Judge and Jury. This was a Jury trial. It is essential to justice that the trial not be prejudiced in any way. Until the Jury have given their verdict, whatever you think of the defendants, they must be presumed to be innocent and must be treated accordingly.

It is not for an idiotic fraudster to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. If the trial had been found to be prejudiced by Yaxley-Lennon's actions, the whole trial would have had to be cancelled at huge expense. Victims who have had to testify before the accused men would have to do so again. The potential damage that Yaxley-Lennon could have caused is huge. That is why this has been taken so seriously.

To better understand the issue flip it on its head. Lets say that this was a trial where the accused were found not guilty. Do you still think the accused should have been tried by media and thugs, their reputation destroyed, friendships broken, marriage ended etc? It is the job of the Judiciary and the Legal System to protect the innocent and ensure that when guilt is found that is is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Mistakes have been made, and will continue to have been made. People who have done terrible things have got off. Is it better that someone gets away with a crime or that someone who hasn't committed a crime is punished? The law says it is better to risk not punishing a guilty party than to punish an innocent party.
In this case, Guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the guilty are now serving at Her Majesty's pleasure, Yaxley Lennon included.
THIS^^

It's nothing to do with protecting the 'monsters', it's to do with upholding the way the UK Justice system works.
 
He jeopardised the case against these 'monsters' by his actions which could easily have meant they walked free FFS :cursing:
The point is he did not jeopardise the case, it proceeded - after some legal argument - as normal.

Robinson is probably too thick to know the case would not be jeopardised, and no one can predict the future.

But when the High Court judges dealt with him, they had the full sketch, they knew what he had done, and they knew it had no adverse impact on the child abuse proceedings.

As I've posted before, he is still guilty of the offence, and a sentence must follow.

Sentencing is always a matter of opinion, even for their lordships.

My opinion is they over cut this one a bit.

Not that there's a lot of other cases to go on, a conviction for a serious contempt which merits custody is very rare.

I can only bring one other contempt case to mind, a barrister who refused to comply with a judge's instruction.

That was dealt with by way of a fine, which, surprise, surprise, was overturned on appeal.
 

icowden

Senior Member
Location
Surrey
The point is he did not jeopardise the case, it proceeded - after some legal argument - as normal.

Robinson is probably too thick to know the case would not be jeopardised, and no one can predict the future.

But when the High Court judges dealt with him, they had the full sketch, they knew what he had done, and they knew it had no adverse impact on the child abuse proceedings.
Exactly. They knew that the case could have been jeopardised and found that he was in contempt of court. Being unaware of the the law is not a defense, and in Yaxley-Lennon's case he was already guilty of contempt of court for a previous case. Thus he is also not learning from his mistakes. I doubt that he is "too thick" as you put it. He is an accomplished fraudster and criminal.

If you read the judgement in full the Judges are very clear as to why they found him in contempt. Personally I thought he got off lightly - I expected the longest sentence they could impose.

Again, this illustrates how someone can be convicted and sentenced for something they did which might have caused something to happen. The fact that it didn't doesn't mean he is innocent.

As simpler example - attempted murder is something that didn't happen - but someone tried.
 
One of the defendants solicitors attempted to get the case dismissed on the grounds that due to adverse publicity their client would not get a fair trial, that is why the ban (that Yaxley-Lennon chose to ignore) was in place.
The publicity postponement order was not in place because of those defendants.

It was in place for defendants in linked cases yet to be tried.

Some of the evidence may be similar, so a jury in a second case might be tainted if they knew all about the first case.

Robinson - or anyone else - taking video of the first lot doesn't prejudice anything.

The first jury knew who they were trying, so pics of those defendants milling around outside the court will hardly have been a surprise.

As regards prejudice of a subsequent trial, the passage of time will come into it - will a juror - who didn't know he was going to be a juror - watching the video remember it, and take so much notice of it as to allow it to alter his judgment in the second case?

Simply informing a future juror that child abuse cases happen at Leeds Crown Court doesn't prejudice anything - they will already know that given the large number of high profile cases of Asian grooming gangs.

Then there's jury questions.

Jurors in the second trial will have been asked if they had any knowledge of child abuse cases in the area concerned - Huddersfield, I believe.

They will have been asked if they know any of the defendants or witnesses.

Getting an untainted jury is not hard, which is what happened, which is why the cases were not stopped.

However, the order was in place and Robinson breached it, so he must expect punishment.

Also worth bearing in mind it was a postponement order.

Assuming that series of cases is now finished, the video becomes legal - there is no standing ban on taking photos of defendants - or anyone else - outside court.
 

Rusty Nails

We remember
Location
Here and there
The point is he did not jeopardise the case, it proceeded - after some legal argument - as normal.

Robinson is probably too thick to know the case would not be jeopardised, and no one can predict the future.

But when the High Court judges dealt with him, they had the full sketch, they knew what he had done, and they knew it had no adverse impact on the child abuse proceedings.

As I've posted before, he is still guilty of the offence, and a sentence must follow.

Sentencing is always a matter of opinion, even for their lordships.

My opinion is they over cut this one a bit.

Not that there's a lot of other cases to go on, a conviction for a serious contempt which merits custody is very rare.

I can only bring one other contempt case to mind, a barrister who refused to comply with a judge's instruction.

That was dealt with by way of a fine, which, surprise, surprise, was overturned on appeal.
If I drive my car stupidly close to a bunch of schoolchildren crossing the road at a greater speed than is safe I put them in jeopardy. I may not actually run into them but I still put them in jeopardy and should be treated accordingly.
 

Waterwheel

Regular
He jeopardised the case against these 'monsters' by his actions which could easily have meant they walked free FFS :cursing:
No he did NOT! Because he was reporting from outside the court after the trial had finished on the day of sentencing! Also another group The Sikh Awareness Team had previously reported on the same case just an hour earlier but had faced no police action! The establishment has also been trying to shut up Tommy and others who report on Islamic extremism and muslim child grooming gangs for years.
 
Top Bottom