Tommy Robinson’s Appeal

In late May I said the following regarding the arrest and imprisonment of Tommy Robinson:

Robinson has not been arrested for filming outside a court building, he’s been arrested because he embarrasses the ruling classes.

The fact Robinson was originally arrested for breach of the peace and later that changed to prejudicing a trial shows the authorities aren’t really interested in what they charge him with provided he ends up behind bars.

Whereas one could have expected the usual suspects to be chortling with glee over Robinson’s predicament, I felt rather too many people who ought to have defended him were secretly glad he’d been found guilty of contempt of court because that meant they didn’t have to. A lot of people thought, provided he’d been found guilty by a judge, then guilty he was even though it was obvious that the whole thing stank to high heaven. At best, one could see Robinson had been singled out for punishment; at worst, one suspected the police and judiciary were under political orders to get Robinson behind bars ASAP.

I knew it was bad, but I only began to understand just how bad when I listened to James Delingpole’s podcast with Canadian conservative Ezra Levant: his description of Tommy Robinson’s treatment at the hands of the British state sounds like something from a Cold War documentary about Eastern Europe. I urge you to listen to it, just to get an idea of what a stitch up it was. It is an absolute, utter disgrace and as Levant asks, where were the media in all of this? Where was Amnesty International, who worked so tirelessly on behalf of the jihadists in Guantanamo Bay? Or Reporters Without Borders, who seem awfully silent on the fact a man was jailed for making a video on his iPhone on public property outside a court. The reason is these sorts of organisations are made up of people who, secretly and not so secretly, are happy he’s behind bars. Whatever principles these organisations adopted got jettisoned a long time ago, and we should remember that whenever they’re cited as a moral authority on anything.

Anyway, I’d just finished listening to the Delingpole podcast when I saw on the news that Robinson had been released after appealing his most recent sentence. The full judgement is here, and it makes for grim reading if you’re someone who wishes to convince others that Britain isn’t becoming a banana republic. Consider this:

The appellant, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who uses the pseudonym Tommy Robinson
for political purposes, was committed to prison for a total of 13 months on 25 May 2018
for breach of an order made under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act.

Imprisoning someone for 13 months for contempt of court is unprecedented and, as Levant explains in the podcast, Robinson was moved from HMP Hull to HMP Onley, which is notorious for its Muslim prison gangs. Why he was moved and who authorised it is not public knowledge, but in a country where the process is the punishment, it is impossible to rule out vindictiveness. As such, Robinson had to enter solitary confinement for his own protection; I doubt anyone will be held accountable for this.

Now I don’t have the legal knowledge to do a proper analysis of the appeal court judgement, but this is pretty damning:

At no stage were particulars of the alleged contempt put to the appellant for him to accept or deny them.

For some years now people have expressed deep concern that employees or students suspected of wrong-think have been subject to a Kafkaesque process during which the accused was never told what they did wrong (the case of Lindsay Shepherd is a good example). This method of getting rid of non-conformists is becoming ever-more common, and I’d even argue it’s standard in many large corporations; it certainly seems to be the case in universities. Am I therefore surprised the British judicial system has followed the same path? Given the direction of travel, no I’m not. With people like Blair, Cameron, and May running the country it was only a matter of time.

That hearing began with reference to the appellant’s antecedents and was followed by mitigation.

It seems the judge had already decided Robinson was guilty and all that was left was his counsel to argue mitigation. This is important because many of Robinson’s detractors in the media and elsewhere thought they held a trump card because he’d plead guilty to contempt of court. Turns out, he did no such thing – nor was he even given an opportunity to do so.

Which brings me onto our old friend The Secret Barrister, whose pomposity and sneering at Robinson and his supporters was overlooked by those willing to do so on the grounds that at least the legal analysis was sound. The entire premise of The Secret Barrister’s original post was that objections over Robinson’s treatment were the ill-informed ravings of knuckle-dragging racists and he, a respected barrister with impeccable anti-racist credentials, would explain why they were wrong and it was all above board. But as I said at the time, the purpose of the post was not so much to inform as to signal the author’s virtue, and now he’s been found out big-time. He’s written a post following the appeal court ruling, and if you have the patience to wade through more than four thousand words you finally get to the bit where he says he was wrong:

So I hold my hands up – imperfect information makes for imperfect predictions. But is there a wider issue here, among me and other legal commentators? Were we too quick to dismiss the case with a “nothing to see here” wave of the hand, blinded by the unappealing nature of Robinson’s supporters and the organised maelstrom of fake news stirred up here and abroad? Maybe we were.

Not maybe: you were, and you owe them all an apology. Now either you knew this case stank but you pretended it didn’t, which makes you dishonest. Or you didn’t know what a blind man a mile away could see, which makes you incompetent. Which is it? Sadly, all we get is this:

I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter.

Translation: “Good people like me defending a horrendous perversion of justice that saw a man jailed is less of a social evil than the objections of lower class oiks who were right all along.” And I think that sums up The Secret Barrister and his ilk rather nicely; all those who cited this charlatan’s post as a basis for their own views on Robinson’s imprisonment ought to take a long, hard look at themselves.

On the wider point, what disturbs me most about the actions of the judge who treated the case as a criminal matter, rammed the whole thing through in five hours without due process and tossed Robinson in jail, is that he must have known exactly what he was doing. He must have also known that, should Robinson appeal, he will come in for some heavy criticism. Despite this, he did it anyway, brazenly and blatantly, confident he will face no repercussions and that he will have the full support of the establishment, the media, and the chattering classes. The judge and those whose instructions he was following probably knew Robinson would get out on appeal, but believed the process would be enough of a deterrent for Robinson and others who might also consider embarrassing the ruling classes. And if he got himself beaten up or killed in prison, so much the better. This is not a justice system worthy of the name, and heads should roll. They won’t of course, and the authorities will be better prepared next time they need to silence an inconvenient voice. One lesson they will have learned, much to their delight, is they can count on the full support of a huge number of British people for whom maintaining middle-class sensibilities is more important than justice. I fear we’ve not seen the last of these cases, not by a long shot.

Share

63 thoughts on “Tommy Robinson’s Appeal

  1. I mean, Newman. Apart from looking like a demented inbred chipmunk, is Wankpuffin systematic of your friends? The poor little snowflake…

  2. I think the Secret Barrister is secret mainly because he’s very junior and doesn’t really know what he’s talking about half the time.

  3. Having read the judgement. it’s plain even to the meanest intelligence that Judge Marson QC at the very least breached the guidelines over partiality. Even the most cursory evaluation of the case is enough to conclude that TR’s conviction was unsafe simply from a procedural standpoint.

    Any damned fool can see that. Or maybe not.

  4. “Having read the judgement. it’s plain even to the meanest intelligence that Judge Marson QC at the very least breached the guidelines over partiality. Even the most cursory evaluation of the case is enough to conclude that TR’s conviction was unsafe simply from a procedural standpoint.

    Any damned fool can see that. Or maybe not.”

    And pray tell how did the Judge breach the guidelines of partiality? By sending someone to jail who was ALREADY ON A SUSPENDED SENTENCE for a near identical offence? And his conviction was unsafe? When he pleaded GUILTY to the offence in court?

    Fucking hell! The Dunning Kruger effect is clearly on show with you, Bill.

  5. This from “Morris”: “I think the Secret Barrister is secret mainly because he’s very junior and doesn’t really know what he’s talking about half the time.”

    Morris, old chap. I have it on good authority – certainly better authority than you will ever have – that the Secret Barrister is a very senior Barrister with years of experience in practising law and at the Bar.

    You, on the other hand, are a moron.

  6. That makes it even more embarrassing for TSB. Another big-shot lawyer who’s really a dimwit. Met a few of those in my time. One of your mates? Your wife?

    >You, on the other hand, are a moron.

    And you’re nasty little gobshite with delusions of superiority. Maybe if you mention the Dunning-Kruger effect a few more hundred times you’ll eventually realise that that you’re the walking embodiment of it.

  7. The Secret Barrister could have done very well by pointing out what Robinson’s supporters had *really* got wrong, and also highlighting where he thought they might have a point, i.e. applying his legal knowledge to the situation properly and fairly. If he’d then been proven correct by the appeals court, he’d stand in good stead with pretty much everybody. Alas, he chose another path, and here we are.

  8. Edit: Looks like HB’s vicious response to my post has been deleted, so I can delete the response I just posted.

  9. @The Honey Badger on August 5, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    When he pleaded GUILTY to the offence in court?

    Thanks for confirming you post lies and are a bigot.

    Appeal judgement confirms Tommy R did Not plead guilty.

  10. where have you been all of Tim’s blogging life Honey Badger?

    What all blogs need is a dissenting voice. Stay ranty.

  11. Morris, old chap. I have it on good authority – certainly better authority than you will ever have – that the Secret Barrister is a very senior Barrister with years of experience in practising law and at the Bar.

    So he’s lying in his book about having done his law degree in the early noughties (which would put him no older than 36 and hence Not Very Senior At All) then?

    Good to know 🙄

  12. @Honey Badger. Have you ever read the current 2013 issued Judges guidelines? I have, and the Bangalore principles which are at the core of not just UK but international Jurisprudence. Marson QC was dead wrong to behave as he did and now it has come back to bite him. Had he followed accepted procedure and fielded the case off to another judge, TR would have been tied up in legal knots and more effectively silenced than at present.

    Dunning-Kruger yourself. Incidentally, calling people you don’t know names is not likely to prove anything apart from your own shortcomings, which having read your numerous ill-tempered contributions to the thread, are legion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *