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: 63
14
<< 60  61  62    64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

www.bbc.co.uk...

Just saw this. Had no idea how much money he has made.

Anyway, I shall post no more on this thread. Enjoy the pub.




posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
First to have to state the obvious Islam is not a race.

Is it any wonder the followers of Mohamed follow his example.

He was a sex mad sicko, it was recorded he would have sex with up to 9 women and girls in a night and even the women of his time didn`t want his daughters around him.

short vid 2 minutes showing the verses..
Muhammad Was Known as a Womanizer! (Fun Islamic Fact #18)


Be sure to check the channel as there are a tonne video`s to educate those totally ignorant of what Mohammad/Islam teaches in its purest form.

Mohammad was a demonically possessed delusional suicidal raping thieving warmonger pedophile from the start till his death all from their own text. Yet they think he was a prophet from a god? It wasn`t Gabriel that tricked Mohammad into reciting the text, it was Satan and can be proven within the text along side the Bible.

Aisha his child bride of 6 years old when Mohammad was 54 consummated the marriage at age 9, though they used the lunar calendar which made her approx 51/2 and 8 at consummation, he also punched her in the chest. A Muslim beat his wife so bad her skin turned green. Mohammad only rebuked the women for being a bad wife.

Three Quran Verses Every Woman Should Know


Mohammad as a refuge fled Mecca with a small amount of his followers, he fled because even the place he grew up wanted to kill him, so he went to Medina as was taken in by 3 Jewish tribes, after a while he got the three tribes to war against each other till there were 1 tribe left, he and his men slaughtered and beheaded the remaining men all in one day, he checked boys if they had pubes if yes they were slaughtered, he and his men raped the women in their husbands blood, he lit a fire on one mans chest as torture to get him to reveal booty.
It was from that day the Islamic calendar starts, not when Mohammad got his fallen Angel encounter.

He then went about robbing the trade caravans and when his numbers grew with submit or die as is Islams way, he led a charge back to Mecca and slaughtered all there, he destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba except one, the black stone, which is now framed by a womans virgina (whore of Babylon)in the outside corner of the cube, that Mohammad got Muslims to believe its black because it sucks out their sins when kissed and caressed and walked around, 1.8 billion bow down to it 3 times a day.

AKA Tommy Robinson has been speaking out about its teachings and isn`t ignorant of Islam, which is against what the MSM have been feeding the western world, which is the main reason why they have gone after him. Its diabolical and insane to misinform the populace and cover up what Islam actually is does and teaches.

If any want to talk about the people who have used a perverted Christianity ie the Roman Catholic Church who slaughtered Christians for entertainment for 300 odd years then messed their pagan religions with Christianity for the ongoing control of the Roman Empire as they couldn`t contain Christianty , I`m on board with you, the Vatican and Islam both have their roots in ancient Babylon used for control of the people.

Christianity and Islam are totally opposed.

Christianity is Calvary, saved through grace.

Islam is Cavalry., usurp rape kill lie plunder through any means necessary (many forms of Jihad) till Islam dominates all, and helped by the stupid and ignorant deluded by MSM/social media narratives.


Shout out to Grambler who has a good moral compass and a good head on his shoulders and a shout out to bartconnolly who has brought a great deal of truth about TR and Islam to the topic and BuckyWunderlick well done guys.

And prayers to Tommy and his family.

Finally David Woods take on...

Tommy Robinson Sent Back to Prison (for Journalism) with a clip from TR

edit on 12-7-2019 by gps777 because: vid code



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Friday means pub o'clock and agreed there's no point continuing the conversation so final post on the matter is the statement from the Society of Editors about how he broke basic Contempt reporting laws and his claims he was 'convicted for journalism' are a dangerous distortion of the truth.:
www.societyofeditors.org...

---
'At his sentencing Robinson claimed the sentence was an attack on journalism and wore a t-shirt with the words ‘Convicted of Journalism’ that also compared the UK to North Korea.

Reacting to his claims, Society of Editors executive director Ian Murray said that in reality Robinson had broken the law by ignoring the laws of contempt that any junior reporter working for a reputable news provider would be aware of.

“On the one level this underscores how it is the mainstream media and others that devote huge amounts of time and resources to training their journalists that can be relied upon to provide accurate and balanced reporting of the facts.

“While anyone can claim to be a journalist in this country, and there is no appetite nor should there be for the licensing of journalists in the UK, the mainstream British media adheres to the laws of the land, is correctly regulated and ensures its journalists are highly trained. I am not aware that Robinson has any formal training as a journalist, and to claim his trial and sentencing is an attack on journalism itself is a farce.”

But, Murray added, the claims would no doubt resonate with his supporters and also provide ammunition for those who wish to harm the UK media.

“Sadly there are people who wish to see the media in the UK emasculated and these sorts of claims are so obviously unfounded they provide ammunition to attack us with."

“There are sufficient real and potential threats to genuine journalism to contend with such as the Online Harms White Paper, the Age Appropriate rulings from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the still un-repealed Section 40 clause to the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”
----

---



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Pub. Now. It's the law.



posted on Jul, 12 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Couldn't resist.




posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

there are three charges in the AG case:
Note
page 27-28 of
the court guidelines Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
2015 (revised May 2016) at
www.judiciary.uk...
The Judgement
www.judiciary.uk...
The Court of criminal appeal case
www.bailii.org...
Now the Judgement sayd the AG had THREE accusations. REMEMBER the earlier accusation of affecting the Jury and Predjudicing the trial; were thrown out so the AG brought in NEW and DIFFERENT accusations for the same acts i.e. he retried TR for the same acts but now claimed it was some other offence that he was guilty of even though the original accusation was throen out.

Paragraph 3 in the Judgement First,
1. the online publication involved a
breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2)
of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar
trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials.
2. the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk
that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby
amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”.
3. that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at Court,
doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with
the due administration of justice

Nothe also the same paragraph says contempt is "quazi criminal" i.e. it is NOT a crime! Yet they put TR in a Category A prison?
Section 4(2) says "order that the publication of any report of the proceedings,"
www.legislation.gov.uk...
1. TR did not report the p[roceedings. He merly read a BBC report on what the trial was and what the charges were and who was accused. He DID NOT REPORT ON ANYTHING ELSE that proceeded in the court after that!
2. The Court itself ( while under the gagging order ) said TR didnt affect any Jury or predjudice any proceedings. It did so when faced with a motion to dismiss based on claim 2. Subsequent to this convicted defendants appealed the Judgement and the Appeal Judge dismissed the appeal on the basis that TR didn't affect any Jury!
3. This is the only possible charge that TR said "Do you have your prison bag with you ? how are you feeling about the sentencing hearing today?" or words to that effect. NOTE this was one of the defendants who appealed in number 2 just above this. Clearly FAR MORE EXTREME comments are made to TR and to other people and nobody has been accused let alone imprisoned even at home let alone put in maximum security for nine months!



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: bartconnolly

And all the above ASSUMES a case of the court following its own process and listing the orders according to their own rules. And the other well bandied argument of "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" TR was not ignorant of the law. He seems quite well versed in it. so much so he was at pains to follow it. take for example trespassing on property which has no signs saying "private property" . If you think "we are in a field and it might well be private or the local farmer might not mind people crossing his field". So suppose you see the farm house and instead of just crossing the field to walk in the forest at the far side you approach the house and see someone working in the garden. You ask "is the owner here? I want to know if I can cross that field to get to the forest? there are no trespass signs up and the gate is open. If he doesn't want anyone crossing the field he should put signs upi or maybe you can tell me if there is a problem. I am aware this farmer is in the farming association and membership of that requires all members to erect signs and to have notices and staff around their house briefed about trespass. I know this because I was accused of trespass before and made sure I was aware of all the laws and procedures around it so I won't be accused again." The guy says "I only work on this farm but I'm not aware of any prohibitions or private property signs. You might ask someone else who deals with signs the farm manager will be around later."
How could it then be said you were negligent of performing any trespass? You are not ignorant of the law and you checked with the staff and no notices ( which were required by law and by procedure) were posted?



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Now the Judgement sayd the AG had THREE accusations. REMEMBER the earlier accusation of affecting the Jury and Predjudicing the trial; were thrown out so the AG brought in NEW and DIFFERENT accusations for the same acts i.e. he retried TR for the same acts but now claimed it was some other offence that he was guilty of even though the original accusation was throen out.


Pleased that you are posting actual court papers, many of which have been posted already.

However, not sure why you are still making these basic errors, as above. For example, no earlier "accusations" were thrown out. The role of the Attorney General was to review the case and he's reiterated the earlier cases for contempt, including agreeing a custodial sentence. Accusations have not been resurrected, or recreated, or changed. They remained the same.

The Attorney General's involvement was because Robinson successfully appealed his original conviction and judge at the appeal escalated it to the Attorney General.


Nothe also the same paragraph says contempt is "quazi criminal" i.e. it is NOT a crime! Yet they put TR in a Category A prison?


In the Attorney General's judgement there was qualification of the word "quazi" which you have missed; "quazi" did not mean that it was not a crime. It is a crime.


Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.


Advice - read the documents you posted twice and read each sentence and paragraph as contextually linked. This is especially true in a summary of a court judgement. It's not appropriate to quote documents so selectively to support a contrary position, when this will be easily picked up by people who read the quoted documents. It’s a bit dishonest, and I say that as a way to help.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: bartconnolly
Now the Judgement sayd the AG had THREE accusations. REMEMBER the earlier accusation of affecting the Jury and Predjudicing the trial; were thrown out so the AG brought in NEW and DIFFERENT accusations for the same acts i.e. he retried TR for the same acts but now claimed it was some other offence that he was guilty of even though the original accusation was throen out.


Pleased that you are posting actual court papers, many of which have been posted already.


Probably by me or someone that got them from me. It is worth reading the transcripts from the original Leeds case though which I dont know has been posted. Have you read it?


However, not sure why you are still making these basic errors, as above. For example, no earlier "accusations" were thrown out.


They were ! the accusation that the case had been prejudiced and that the jury could be affected. But by the original Judge marsden and aby another Judge on appeal of Marsdens opinion. the other Judge refused to accept the dismissal and kind of made Marsden look silly for contradicting himself 180 degrees only a court day after he alleged it could affect the trial.

Read Paragraph 67 of the Judgement wher it says "

This is a change of position by the Attorney General, who
previously suggested that the publication created a risk that the trials would be
prejudiced by the impact on jurors. That no longer forms any part of the case for the
Attorney General.


the appeal court decision paragraph 78

The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall away
www.bailii.org...

Back to the current contempt trial paragraph 20

On 21 November 2018, a single Judge of the CACD considered an application by Faisal Nadeem, one of the defendants in the Akhtar case, for permission to appeal against
conviction.

and Paragraph 21

The single Judge dismissed the application. He rejected the contention that the jury
would have become aware of the video and been prejudiced by it as “a wholly
speculative ground of appeal which has no evidential basis

i.e. the suggestion that TR had affected the trial or the jury was thrown out by that judge as well!
thats TWO courts superiour to Marsden in addition to Marsden himself admitting that the original accusation of affecting the oputcome of the trial affecting the procedure or affecting the jury were in error!



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: bartconnolly

Accusations have not been resurrected, or recreated, or changed. They remained the same.

the Original accusation widely circulated in the media that the trial was affected and that defendants could have it dismissed because of what TR did were REVERSED ( under gagging order) by Marsden and acknowledged exposed by TR's appeal. Another appeal Judge threw out the case for appeal of the verdict on any act of TR.



The Attorney General's involvement was because Robinson successfully appealed his original conviction and judge at the appeal escalated it to the Attorney General.


The AG is a political appointee. I suspect the Judge wanted to get rid of it an quashed the conviction and threw it back to the politicians. But your suggestion it "escalated" is also incorrect. The AG is not a higher court. Marsden did not follow the correct procedures and incarcerated TR when he should have referred it.
Paragraph 61 of the appeal

ME The transcript shows that no sooner had the judge seen part, but not all, of the footage in the presence of the unrepresented appellant, he decided on his own motion to pursue proceedings for contempt of court and to do so immediately. He appeared to give no consideration to the option of referring the matter to the Attorney General with a view to the instigation of contempt proceedings, nor to an adjournment to enable the matter to proceed at a more measured pace.


The AG then CHANGED the charges!

also R v Montgomery [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 23, in which the Court of Appeal at paragraphs 28D to 29A, laid down guidance in respect of the matters likely to influence the level of punishment appropriate in cases of contempt of court. The particular facts of that case concerned the refusal of a witness to give evidence but the factors material to punishment can readily be adapted and applied to cases involving breach of reporting restrictions. They would usually include:
(a) the effect or potential consequences of the breach upon the trial or trials and upon those participating in them;

(b) the scale of the breach, with particular reference to the numbers of people to whom the report was made, over what period and the medium or media through which it was made;

(c) the gravity of the offences being tried in the trial or trials to which the reporting restrictions applied;

(d) the contemnor's level of culpability and his or her reasons for acting in breach of the reporting restrictions;

(e) whether or not the contempt was aggravated by subsequent defiance or lack of remorse;

(f) the scale of sentences in similar cases, albeit each case must turn on its own facts;

(g) the antecedents, personal circumstances and characteristics of the contemnor;

(h) whether or not a special deterrent was needed in the particular circumstances of the case.



edit on 15-7-2019 by bartconnolly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: bartconnolly
Nothe also the same paragraph says contempt is "quazi criminal" i.e. it is NOT a crime! Yet they put TR in a Category A prison?


In the Attorney General's judgement there was qualification of the word "quazi" which you have missed; "quazi" did not mean that it was not a crime. It is a crime.


Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.



IT IS NOT A CRIME it is contempt of court IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CROWN COURT AT CANTERBURY
AND CROWN COURT AT LEEDS
Her Honour Judge Norton and His Honour Judge Marson QC
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD BURNETT OF MALDON
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES said in Paragraph 71


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an "Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003". The term of thirteen months is described as a "sentence" and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a "suspended sentence". None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given.


"already given" in paragraph 70 which says


As with Canterbury, the formal record of the contempt proceedings wrongly suggests that the appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence, rather than found to have been in contempt of court.


Thats the Lord chief Justice saying it isn't a crime it is contempt of court and he goes on to mention the practical differences eg:paras 74-76


Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:
"Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be done or left undone:
(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1)."

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits and the sending and receipt of letters.
We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.
Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in the event of the passing of a "sentence of imprisonment" and not upon a committal for contempt.



you say:
Advice - read the documents you posted twice and read each sentence and paragraph as contextually linked. This is especially true in a summary of a court judgement. It's not appropriate to quote documents so selectively to support a contrary position, when this will be easily picked up by people who read the quoted documents. It’s a bit dishonest, and I say that as a way to help.


Go and tell me HONESTLY if the Lord chief Justice is wrong in saying contempt is not a criminal offence and prisoners found guilty of it have to be treated differently to criminals. go and read it twice if you want. then come back here and tell me if the LCJ was wrong.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

upi said

It's not appropriate to quote documents so selectively to support a contrary position, when this will be easily picked up by people who read the quoted documents.

Are you seriously arguing the current inceration of Tommy robinson was based on the ORIGINAL accusation of affecting the procedure of the trial or the deliberations of the Jury as claimed at the time?
The Judge huimself ( while under a gagging order) addmited this was not true!
The Appeal Judge for the contempt the Lord chief Justice accepted that it was not true
the AG then re entered THREE accusations for the same events NONE OF WHICH involved affecting the Jury or the procedure.
Two if the three are bogus! But they still are not anything to do with affecting the Jury or procedure.
The third is talking to a defendant and that it might worry the defendant while he was going in to get sentenced.
How is that showing contempt for the court?
And this "defendant" appealed that to another DIFFERENT Higher Judge than Marsden who promptly threw the appeal out!
NOTHING in the current case has anything to do with the DIFFERENT original accusation of accecting the Jury or the procedure of the court.
They changed it to inciting a crowd, worrying the convicted criminals and reporting of the Akhtar
trial which TR did not do! He could not do it in any case because it had not begun!



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Are you seriously arguing the current inceration of Tommy robinson was based on the ORIGINAL accusation of affecting the procedure of the trial or the deliberations of the Jury as claimed at the time?


No. I am saying what I said, which is that to selectively quote without context in order to assert a different point, is not helpful, or entirely honest.

Anyway, Robinson was found guilty of contempt.

Here's the decsion on penalty - opens in PDF


3.The contempts we have found proved were not ones of deliberate defiance; there was no intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and, in the event, neither the Akhtar trial or the trial that followed, were prejudiced. Nevertheless, the respondent’s conduct amounted to a serious contempt. It consisted of the reckless disobedience of an important court order imposed to protect the integrity of the Akhtar trial and subsequent trials, and of conduct which created a substantial risk of a serious impediment to the integrity of the trial process.


Here's a trail of the recent court cases



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 04:47 AM
link   
So, this gang of child abusers. How many years did they get each?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Between 10 and 23 years:

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: bartconnolly

ME
Are you seriously arguing the current inceration of Tommy robinson was based on the ORIGINAL accusation of affecting the procedure of the trial or the deliberations of the Jury as claimed at the time?


YOU
No. I am saying what I said, which is that to selectively quote without context in order to assert a different point, is not helpful, or entirely honest.

You wont get away with calling me a liar! The Lord chief Justice said contempt of court is not a criminal offence! Do you agree with him ? Yes or no?



Anyway, Robinson was found guilty of contempt.


which is NOT a criminal offence! Do you agree it is not a criminal offence ? Yes or no?


Nevertheless, the respondent’s conduct amounted to a serious contempt. It consisted of the reckless disobedience of an important court order imposed to protect the integrity of the Akhtar trial and subsequent trials, and of conduct which created a substantial risk of a serious impediment to the integrity of the trial process.

Rubbish! the court is speaking rubbish! You CAN NOT be guilty of a coulda shoulda woulda crime. You either committed the crime or you didn't! Likewise you can not by guilty of "possible" contempt of "possibly" endangering a trial. You either ACTUALLY endanger the trial ( in which case as Marsden originally claimed the charges would have been dismissed) or you DO NOT endanger it! TR DID NOT endanger it!The idea that he MIGHT HAVE endangered it is ludicrous! He didn't as is obvious because several Higher courts already said so!



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

Here's a trail of the recent court cases


where is the transcript of the Marsden Trial in that list? It isn't there? Go and read that and read what Marsden said the very next day under a gagging order. He said TR didn't affect the jury or the trial. It is even in the excerpt from the the judgement you posted.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, this gang of child abusers. How many years did they get each?

look up the Faisal Nadeem trial that Marsden was Judge over in Leeds
You can get a trainsript:
www.gov.uk...
Here are the names and case numbers
19/10/2018 Leeds
T20177269
T20177360
T20177359
Abdul Rehman
Amere Singh Dhaliwal
Asif Bashir
Everton Labastide
Faisal Nadeem
Hamzha Saleem
Irfan Ahmed
Mansoor Akhtar
Manzoor Hassan
Mohammed Asaf Akram
Mohammed Imran Ibrar
Mohammed Rizwan Aslam
Mohammed Azeem
See also
T20187583
T20187581
T20170929

Abdul Majid
Abdul Rehman
Amere Singh Dhaliwal
Amin Ali Choli
Banaras Hussain
Banaris Hussain
Basharat Hussain
Fehreen Rafiq
Gul Riaz
Iftikar Ali
Irfan Ahmed
Manzoor Akhtar
Mohammed Hussain Dogar
Mohammed Imran Ibrar
Mohammed Suhail Arif
Mohammed Akram
Mohammed Irfraz
Mohammed Kammer
Mohammed Sajjad
Mubasher Hussain
Muhammed Waqas Anwar
Muhammed Waqa


edit on 17-7-2019 by bartconnolly because: entering reference



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

the Judgment you referenced says " 11. In our judgment, the appropriate penalty for the Leeds contempt is one of 6 months.
That is a proportionate penalty and the least penalty commensurate with the
seriousness of the offending. "
where has any reporter on nay trial ever got such a similar sentence . and it says in this case TR had no intent on affecting the trial i.e. no mens rea?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

the Judgment you referenced says " 11. In our judgment, the appropriate penalty for the Leeds contempt is one of 6 months.
That is a proportionate penalty and the least penalty commensurate with the
seriousness of the offending. "
where has any reporter on nay trial ever got such a similar sentence . and it says in this case TR had no intent on affecting the trial i.e. no mens rea?
R vMontgomery [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 23, in which the Court of Appeal at paragraphs 28D
to 29A, laid down guidance in respect of the matters likely to influence the level of
punishment appropriate in cases of contempt of court. The particular facts of that case
concerned the refusal of a witness to give evidence but the factors material to
punishment can readily be adapted and applied to cases involving breach of reporting
restrictions. They would usually include:
(a) the effect or potential consequences of the breach upon the trial or trials and upon
those participating in them;
(b) the scale of the breach, with particular reference to the numbers of people to whom
the report was made, over what period and the medium or media through which it
was made;
(c) the gravity of the offences being tried in the trial or trials to which the reporting
restrictions applied;
(d) the contemnor's level of culpability and his or her reasons for acting in breach of
the reporting restrictions;
(e) whether or not the contempt was aggravated by subsequent defiance or lack of
remorse;
(f) the scale of sentences in similar cases, albeit each case must turn on its own facts;
(g) the antecedents, personal circumstances and characteristics of the contemnor;
(h) whether or not a special deterrent was needed in the particular circumstances of the
case



Let us OBJECTIVELY point by point assess TR's "commensurate " level of offence here!
a - Had TRs actions collapsed the case there would have to be a retrial and the cost maybe into hundreds of thousands to one million pounds. BUT the Judge Himself Marsden said TR had no such effect and this was also tested by an appeal for dismissal on the grounds that TRs video had affected the procedure or the verdict and addressed the particular case of the two "defendants" he spoke and the appeal court threw it out!
b- the video was seem by millions but the "scale" of the breach is zero since no breach occurred according to the judge himself and appeal court judge and the Lord chief justice.
c- the gravity of the offences were severe of the order of 10 to 20 years in prison. But 28? "defendants" not a single case was affected.
d= the Lord chief justice accepted and the court that found TR in contempt agreed that TR had no malicious intent.
e= TR expressed remorse at his earlier behaviour in Cantebuiry and had actually gone at his own expense to educate and train himself with respect to contempt and had made enquiries to make sure he was behaving within the guidelines but it seems the court didnt take this into account
f NO OTHER JOURNALIST reporting any any trial has ever had a similar sentence! Or had any jail time at all! Certainly not in maximum security prison!
g. TR personally as an antecedent activity went to personal expense to educate himself to avoid any contempt and even asked court staff for advice and information.




top topics



 
14
<< 60  61  62    64 >>

log in

join