I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.
I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.
1. Tommy Robinson is on trial again tomorrow for the same contempt of court matter he was already jailed for once. I’ll be covering the trial on Twitter as always, and also on video. We’re also bringing https://t.co/VcbFInCWS1 — because you can’t trust the Media Party.
‘Tommy Robinson’ and the Leftist legalese of those with no respect for the average citizen.
There is a young chap – I assume he is young because he admits to being only a Junior Barrister – who holds forth to all and sundry (with matinées on Saturday) on subjects of legal exactitude. He writes under the exciting nom de plume of The Secret Barrister. He’s no dope: in both 2016 and 2017, the Secret Barrister was named Independent Blogger of the Year at the Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards.
My problem with his double victory is the word ‘independent’. This is based on several observations, but chiefly the obviously Left-leaning sneer with which he writes, born of an equally clear superiority complex that is, these days, common to almost all bourgeois Leftists.
It can now be reported that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming a broadcast, including footage of participants in a criminal trial, outside Leeds Crown Court.
Today the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard the appeal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).
Judgment was reserved, meaning the Court’s decision will not be known for another couple of weeks. However it is worth, given the events of today, having a quick look at what happened. In doing so, I am grateful to the excellent Lizzie Dearden of the Independent who provided a comprehensive live-blog of the hearing from the Royal Courts of Justice, as well as the indispensable Matthew Scott who live-tweeted the hearing, and whose blogpost on the subject tells you everything you could ever need to know.
Today the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down judgment in the appeal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson), partially allowing the appeal and directing a rehearing at the Crown Court.
What does this mean? Has Tommy been proven innocent? Is this a victory for freedom of speech?
Reblogged this on MUSO MUSINGS ON FATHERHOOD THEORY AND STUFF and commented:
Both of these cases and the Dunkula Case are very important. My own belief is that all 3 victims of State over-reach are useful idiots to some extent for an overarching authoritarian power grab by the Corporate State.
Free Speech is our best weapon against Authoritarian excesses of an All-powerful state so Each of these 3 deserves our Support and Solidarity regardless of how we view each of the Three as Individuals. #JusticeForAlsionChabloz #FreeTommyRobinson #AquitDunkula On Contemp these guidance notes I think suggest a Good QC would overturn Tommy’s conviction, I would also be interested to know if the Attorney General was consulted as per the Guidance Notes. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
Previous Posts on this case. https://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.com/search?q=Chabloz
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
The CPS guidance is quite clear in such cases as these the Attorney General would ordinarily be consulted, not necessarily but ordinarily.
Notifying the Law Officers
The Attorney General has a public interest function, part of which is to ensure the fair and proper administration of justice. In exercising his or her functions in relation to contempt, the Attorney General is acting independently of Government, in a public interest capacity, to ensure that justice is protected and accordingly takes it proper course. It is imperative that where an allegation of contempt of court arises and the Attorney may need to institute proceedings or his consent is required it is referred immediately to the Attorney General.
rogerglewis
May 30, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I beg to differ with the Barrister secret or otherwise john his intellect is I would say below par for that esteemed profession. Having employed some of the best in the Business over the years this chap would not get a job making the tea
There is an undoubted stitch up afoot here from the Court report widely circulated by the local court reporter in attendance and a chorus of cheerleaders for what is at best a dodgy application of best Advice.
I blogged on this myself today and include this link. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
The CPS guidance is quite clear in such cases as these the Attorney General would ordinarily be consulted, not necessarily but ordinarily.
Notifying the Law Officers
The Attorney General has a public interest function, part of which is to ensure the fair and proper administration of justice. In exercising his or her functions in relation to contempt, the Attorney General is acting independently of Government, in a public interest capacity, to ensure that justice is protected and accordingly takes it proper course. It is imperative that where an allegation of contempt of court arises and the Attorney may need to institute proceedings or his consent is required it is referred immediately to the Attorney General. Cases should be referred immediately even though further investigation is required or is being carried out and particularly where an Order has been made for the matter to be referred to the Attorney General.
Read the guidance yourself I think that Tommy was denied a proper Brief familiar with both the Canterbury case and the Extant one was a Big Own Goal by the presiding Judge and the prosecuting Officer.
I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.
