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: 64
14
<< 61  62  63    65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

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


NOBODY is ever found innocent! In criminal they are ASSUMED innocent and you have to prove they are guilty. Otherwise they are found not guilty . they are not found "innocent"
2. Contempt of court is not a crime.




posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly

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


NOBODY is ever found innocent! In criminal they are ASSUMED innocent and you have to prove they are guilty. Otherwise they are found not guilty . they are not found "innocent"
2. Contempt of court is not a crime.


1.Correction of wording accepted I should have said not guilty rather than innocent however doesn't change point.

2. Contempt of court is punishable by a prison sentence, so again no impact on point of double jeopardy.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bartconnolly

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


NOBODY is ever found innocent! In criminal they are ASSUMED innocent and you have to prove they are guilty. Otherwise they are found not guilty . they are not found "innocent"
2. Contempt of court is not a crime.


1.Correction of wording accepted I should have said not guilty rather than innocent however doesn't change point.

2. Contempt of court is punishable by a prison sentence, so again no impact on point of double jeopardy.

He was found not guilty and then they invented three MORE charges to do with the same event and re entered that. But the UK didnt sign up for the International Law on Double Jeopardy anyway.
2. The Lord chief Justice made it abundantly clear that contempt was NOT a crime and anyone in contempt was NOT to be treated as a criminal. so why was TR sent to a Max Security Prison?
Also of the three NEW charges two of them are bunkum! One is clearly twisting TRs complaints about the media not going after rapists and instead going after people who want the muslims rape gangs to be exposed and turning that complaint into a claim that he was incitine his followers to attack the rapists families and not asking the media why arent they interviewing the rapists families like they are going after his family and friends?
The WORST of the three was that he "upset" the convicted rapists by asking them "how do you feel about your sentencing"?
Thisis the WORST thing he did of all the three accusations! And for that he got nine months! And in the Sentence the Judge said at paragrtaph 11 that this was "commensurate with similar sentences"
A. It WASNT! Thre are no similar sentences in the UK!
B. The sentence goes against t6he guidlines quotyed by the Lord Chief Justice in his appeal ruling!



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bartconnolly

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


NOBODY is ever found innocent! In criminal they are ASSUMED innocent and you have to prove they are guilty. Otherwise they are found not guilty . they are not found "innocent"
2. Contempt of court is not a crime.


1.Correction of wording accepted I should have said not guilty rather than innocent however doesn't change point.

2. Contempt of court is punishable by a prison sentence, so again no impact on point of double jeopardy.

He was found not guilty and then they invented three MORE charges to do with the same event and re entered that. But the UK didnt sign up for the International Law on Double Jeopardy anyway.
2. The Lord chief Justice made it abundantly clear that contempt was NOT a crime and anyone in contempt was NOT to be treated as a criminal. so why was TR sent to a Max Security Prison?
Also of the three NEW charges two of them are bunkum! One is clearly twisting TRs complaints about the media not going after rapists and instead going after people who want the muslims rape gangs to be exposed and turning that complaint into a claim that he was incitine his followers to attack the rapists families and not asking the media why arent they interviewing the rapists families like they are going after his family and friends?
The WORST of the three was that he "upset" the convicted rapists by asking them "how do you feel about your sentencing"?
Thisis the WORST thing he did of all the three accusations! And for that he got nine months! And in the Sentence the Judge said at paragrtaph 11 that this was "commensurate with similar sentences"
A. It WASNT! Thre are no similar sentences in the UK!
B. The sentence goes against t6he guidlines quotyed by the Lord Chief Justice in his appeal ruling!


When was he found not guilty?

Contempt of court can carry a prison sentence.

Abstract discussions about criminality or not are irrelevant to that.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
He was found not guilty and then they invented three MORE charges to do with the same event and re entered that.

You are of course completely wrong and are guilty of invention yourself. Earlier in the week you posted the links to the court papers, alongside other people who posted the same. Did you read them? Here's detail on the recent judgement by the Attorney General.


But the UK didn't sign up for the International Law on Double Jeopardy anyway.

Double jeopardy has sod all to do with international law. It applies in rare circumstances to murder cases in England and Wales. It's also a red herring in the case of Tommy Robinson as he was not tried twice.


2. The Lord chief Justice made it abundantly clear that contempt was NOT a crime and anyone in contempt was NOT to be treated as a criminal.

Contempt of court is a crime, but the onus is on the court (judge) to demonstrate that fact. I think the words used by the Attorney General was that contempt of court was "quasi-criminal" in nature. It's a crime. Here's the legislation.

Quasi-criminal only means that the court can punish as if the offences were criminal and the defendant should have due protections and legal process.
edit on 19/7/2019 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Why are you evading the simple questions I asked ?
e.g. contempt of court is a crime = yes or no?
the Lord chief justice says "no" . what do you say?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

on double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
In Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice
Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify." REf "A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld" webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/

These recommendations were implemented within the Criminal Justice Act 2003

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in Scotland since the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 28 November 2011

AS regards INTERNATIONAL LAW
All members of the Council of Europe (which includes nearly all European countries and every member of the European Union) have adopted the European Convention on Human Rights.
The optional Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, Article 4, protects against double jeopardy
The United Kingdom has never ratified this protocol. If it had Double jeopardy rasthar than having as you claim has "sod all to do with international law" would be illegal under International Law.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

You ask if I read the " recent judgement by the Attorney General". the AG is the government appointed legal prosecutor. apparently you agree that the AG is actually passing Judgements!
DID YOU READ IT? The Judgment is by The President of the Queen’s Bench Division
Mr Justice Warby
and NOT by the AG.
In paragraph 27 it attempts to TWIST THE MEANING of "within the precincts of a court" to outside the Building where TR actually asked police and court staff if he was outside the precincts and asked then where the boundary was and they told him ! And he broadcast from OUTSIDE where they told him it was!
But nothing he broadcast was contemptuous anyway!
paragraph 35 says "As a matter of fact, the RRO was not displayed or mentioned on the noticeboard or
Xhibit screen in the Reception area, or on the courtroom screen, or on the door of the
courtroom (as is common practice in some courts), or on CourtServe...This is a
regrettable departure from standard practice, which is accurately described in the
guidance issued by the Judicial College (Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
2015 (revised May 2016)) at para 5.1:"

Paragraph 42 lists the AG case NONE OF WHICH are contempt/ the only possible on eis the final one 42.8
"(8) At another point, the respondent incited viewers to harass the criminal defendants.
The words relied on are:-
“You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who
was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who
faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him,
find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works,
see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call
people and slander people, how about you do it about them?"

"YOU" in this case is clearly THE MEDIA. If you have seen the video this is abundantly clear. The AG tried to TWIST the media to suggest TR was asking HIS SUPPORTERS to harass people when he was referring to THE MEDIA and specifically how they harassed the Head of Generation Identity instead of going after sex offenders. It is quite clear for anyone to see.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

you said " Contempt of court is a crime, but the onus is on the court (judge) to demonstrate that fact."????
So can you please explain what the Lord chief Justice means by www.bailii.org...
Paragraphs 70 amd 71
" 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

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."

In the Judgement the Judges Sharp and Warby say they dont believe he checked if the court screen and court doors had notices of the gagging order in spite of the fact that they admit they hadn't!
they go on to sday they believe his words to the media were paragraph 75
"encouragement to others to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door,
following him, and watching him, and this gave rise to a real risk that the course of
justice would be seriously impeded. "
In other words the CLEARLY identifiable words to the media they TWIST and they find even than that in spite of the fact that these words ( made to the media but which might have mistakenly be assumed to be an appeal to attack defendents ) had NO EFFECT on any trial or on any witness or any convicted defendants.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

The more I read about it the more I am aghast to explain how seniour Judges can make such glaring inferences and base decision on whim without any precedent and at the same time claim it is in accordance with best practice.
They broke their own procedures and then try TR for not respecting procedures?
The Lord chief Justice went to pains to point out that contempt was not a crime! You make light of this as an "abstract discussion"
FAR FROM abstract the Lord chief Justice referred to several legal references as to WHY this distinction of "not a crime" is important. THE ONLY point the LCJ made that the court mentioned was that by law the HAVE TO release TR when half the term is served.
www.judiciary.uk...
paragraph says " we must assess the seriousness of
the offending, including the harm caused. "
Paragraph 11 says " 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."


But they cite NO PRIOR cases where any journalist served any time for reporting on any trial. In fact TR did not report anything other then the names already published and the crimes of which they were accused. He did not report on ANY ongoings or procedures of the trials!
The LCJ made it quite clear that contempt was not criminal in that anyone found guilty must be released after half time being served.

Paragraph 9 says "There is no sentencing guideline for cases of contempt,
but we have regard to those guidelines that are of some relevance. We also have
regard to the guidance given by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in the
respondent’s appeal to that court last year, and the authorities that have been cited.
And paragraph 8 says they will consider the medical condition.

But the LCJ clearly said www.bailii.org... Paragraph 72 "Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court's name for accuracy."

He said this because Paragraphs 73-75
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."

BUT they make no mention of this and send him to a Max security prison!

Specifically the LCJ in paragraph 80 referred to " 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."

None of this seems to be considered!
In 81 he goes into more ramifications whioch again the sentence seems to have leapftogged .
Finally in 82 he said "More generally, although there are no authoritative statutory guidelines relating to punishment for contempt because such punishment does not relate to criminal proceedings, we would, by analogy, draw specific attention to the need to give consideration to the twin elements of culpability and harm as identified in the Sentencing Council Guideline of 2004 relating to "Overarching Principles: Seriousness."

No reference in the sentence was made to this:
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Apologies. It was ScepticScot who referred to "Contempt of court can carry a prison sentence.

Abstract discussions about criminality or not are irrelevant to that."

But the point stands. that contempt is not a crime is relevant.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
a reply to: paraphi

Apologies. It was ScepticScot who referred to "Contempt of court can carry a prison sentence.

Abstract discussions about criminality or not are irrelevant to that."

But the point stands. that contempt is not a crime is relevant.


It's completely irrelevant point with regard the comment you replied to.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Why are you evading the simple questions I asked ?
e.g. contempt of court is a crime = yes or no?
the Lord chief justice says "no" . what do you say?


It is a crime. There's appropriate legislation covering contempt.

Happy for you to point to where the Lord Chief Justice says otherwise.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Why are you evading the simple questions I asked ?
e.g. contempt of court is a crime = yes or no?
the Lord chief justice says "no" . what do you say?


It is a crime. There's appropriate legislation covering contempt.

Happy for you to point to where the Lord Chief Justice says otherwise.


I have pointed it out several times . www.bailii.org...
Paragraph 70 "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."

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."

Paragraph 72 " Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court's name for accuracy."

And WHY is he making this distinction that it not be treated as a crime?

Paragraph 74 " 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)."

Paragraph 75 " 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."

NONE of this is mentioned in the "sentence" which is NOT a sentence but a "committal order". But they do reference the point made in Paragraph 76

" 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."

And they skirt around the point he made in paragraph 77 " 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."



posted on Jul, 20 2019 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
I have pointed it out several times .


And you have been corrected on numerous occasions that contempt of court is a criminal offence, or rather a "quasi-criminal" offence, to quote the Attorney General.

The successful July 2018 appeal by Tommy Robinson was just that. Robinson did not assert he was innocent of contempt, but that the process was unfair. The judgement explores the legal position and upheld the appeal. Essentially, the appeal was on a legal point and due process, rather then the actual offences. The July 2018 judgement conclusion starts...


83. For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the Rules gave rise to unfairness.


Judgement copy source > British and Irish Legal Information Institute

The conclusion also set out the terms for a rehearing (not a retrial) to resolve the question of his offences. The 2019 Attorney General's judgement was that Robinson was in contempt and was returned to prison.

Look, it's all good fun going through court summaries, but you need to read them in the round rather than questioning the minutia, and quoting out of context. You can be sure that if there shaky legal ground Robinson's defence would have picked it up.



posted on Jul, 20 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: bartconnolly
I have pointed it out several times .


And you have been corrected on numerous occasions that contempt of court is a criminal offence, or rather a "quasi-criminal" offence, to quote the Attorney General.

CHANGING your clainm to QUAZI! Why did he do tyhast because the LCJ pointed out Contempt was NOT a crime!
He said it in his judgement!
He then went at pains to point out WHY he said it!
For example not treating contempt like serious CRIMINALS and not sending them to max security might be a start !



The successful July 2018 appeal by Tommy Robinson was just that. Robinson did not assert he was innocent of contempt, but that the process was unfair.

Are you talking about Leeds or Canterbury? One is not found innocent. One is found NOT GUILTY! Robinson said he was not guilty!



The judgement explores the legal position and upheld the appeal. Essentially, the appeal was on a legal point and due process, rather then the actual offences.

No it was not! The original accusations DID NOT STATE what he was meant to have done which caused contyempt! Teh AG then CHANGED THE ACCUSATIONS to hurting the feelings of convicted rapists!



The July 2018 judgement conclusion starts...


83. For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the Rules gave rise to unfairness.



NOW who is selectively quoting? The Judgement says that they didnt state what exactly he did that amounted to contempt. They then sat down for months and thought about it! they came up with THREE NOW accusations two of which are farsical and the thirs is "hurting the feelings of rapists".




The conclusion also set out the terms for a rehearing (not a retrial) to resolve the question of his offences. The 2019 Attorney General's judgement was that Robinson was in contempt and was returned to prison.


Clearly, given you have stated it before, you think it is the AGs job to pass Judgement. It isn't!



Look, it's all good fun going through court summaries, but you need to read them in the round rather than questioning the minutia, and quoting out of context. You can be sure that if there shaky legal ground Robinson's defence would have picked it up.


Coming from someone who SELECTIVELY quotes the beginning of a summary and disregards the rest I think yo umight pay heed to your own advice.



posted on Jul, 20 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
contempt of court is a criminal offence, or rather a "quasi-criminal" offence, to quote the Attorney General.


i.e. NOT a Criminal offence
and the AG does not pass Judgements! The Lord chief Justice however DOES pass judgement and HE SAID it is NOT a crime!
the AG is on the side of the prosecution. You are quoting a biased source!



posted on Jul, 20 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
You can be sure that if there shaky legal ground Robinson's defence would have picked it up.

Were you sure that Dreyfuss defence did the same? Or the Birmingham sixes defence? Or the Guildford Four? Or McGuire Seven?
When a Law Lord Denning was saying they should not look into it because if it was true and they were not guilty then it would open up "an appalling vista" in The British Justice system?
Denning's view was that:

If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further.
publications.parliament.uk...
He also commented that "We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied."

The men's convictions were overturned in 1991, after it was shown that the police had indeed done all the things Denning described, and he admitted that the West Midlands Police force had "let us all down”
edit on 20-7-2019 by bartconnolly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
CHANGING your clainm to QUAZI! Why did he do tyhast because the LCJ pointed out Contempt was NOT a crime!
He said it in his judgement!


I repeat. Contempt of court is a crime in England and Wales. The "quasi" was used to describe the situation. Quasi is a legal term used describe the approach to the law.

Anyway. We are going round in circles with this one. Let's agree to differ. eh?

To summarise.

You think Contempt of Court is not a crime. I think it is. I have the backing of the legislation and precedent. You have an out-of-context statement which is ambiguous at best and worthless when read in context.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: bartconnolly
CHANGING your clainm to QUAZI! Why did he do tyhast because the LCJ pointed out Contempt was NOT a crime!
He said it in his judgement!


I repeat. Contempt of court is a crime in England and Wales. The "quasi" was used to describe the situation. Quasi is a legal term used describe the approach to the law.


Quazi means it it NOT a Criminal offence! Thew AG KNOW THAT because the Lord chief Justice said so! And immediately after he said so he showed WHY he said so! You are ignoring what the Highest Judge in england and Wales said!
I have pointed it out several times .
Paragraph 70 "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 what said! to say contempt of cour is a criminal offence is WRONG! that is what he said " wrongly suggests that the appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence" rather than just saying they were found in contempt! And he continues in the next paragraph to show WHY it should not be regarded as a crime!

Quazi criminal does not mean contempt is a criminal offence.




To summarise.

You think Contempt of Court is not a crime. I think it is.


WRONG! the Lord chief Justice says it isn't!



I have the backing of the legislation and precedent. You have an out-of-context statement which is ambiguous at best and worthless when read in context.

What law says contempt is a CRIME!

The Lord chief Juestice IN THE CONTEXT OF WHY Tommy robinsons contempt of court should NOT BE REGARDED AS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Actually says that it should not be and WHY it should not be. this is fact is the actual reason they changes to referring to it as "Quazi Criminal" . Because it is NOT a criminal offence! According to the Highest Judge in the Land! You think he is wrong ?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 61  62  63    65  66 >>

log in

join