It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir




Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

The perps were awarded with prison sentences totaling over 220 years . Tommy Robinson jeopardised that trial so they may well have got away with it ... but you show your support , it's your prerogative.




posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
In the UK you can be held in remand until your trial date. That's what happened to him the first time, but he appealed and got off remand until his trial date, which was today.


That's not correct. He was sentenced, not on remand, and then released on appeal.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Never knew that. Oh well, Poor Tommy. Shame. I think I'll make a curry for tonight's dinner, Vindaloo?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 5-7-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
In the UK you can be held in remand until your trial date. That's what happened to him the first time, but he appealed and got off remand until his trial date, which was today.


Usually they remand people if they are a flight risk or dangerous. What’s the rules for remand in the UK?
edit on 5-7-2019 by MickyKnox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MickyKnox




We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it. But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?

He was warned previously for filming outside the court as it could have interfered with the court proceedings. He was warned not to report from outside the court, he defied a court order on a blanket ban on reporting until the trial was over.

Say, for instance, someone is convicted. Later transpires that one or more of the jury had seen a video Tommy made and published online and this influenced their decision to convict. Those found guilty could then use that as evidence of a mistrial and basically ask for the case to be thrown out or conviction quashed.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.


He judge would have let the child abusers off. Robinson has no such power.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?

He will get upto 2 years for breaking reporting restrictions and jeopardising the trial , he's already served 2 months.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: MickyKnox




We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it. But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?

He was warned previously for filming outside the court as it could have interfered with the court proceedings. He was warned not to report from outside the court, he defied a court order on a blanket ban on reporting until the trial was over.

Say, for instance, someone is convicted. Later transpires that one or more of the jury had seen a video Tommy made and published online and this influenced their decision to convict. Those found guilty could then use that as evidence of a mistrial and basically ask for the case to be thrown out or conviction quashed.





Thanks for the explanation. It’s still ridiculous a man would be jailed or remanded for such a thing.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   


Robinson has no such power.

But the Jury has. They could have been influenced by his video.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join