Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed

[HAL]

Are they exactly the same?

[thesoretoothsayer]

[quote="Mugwump"]

[Pies4shaw]

[stui magpie]

[Mugwump]

[quote="thesoretoothsayer"]

[Pies4shaw]

Appeal heard yesterday. Court of Appeal has reserved its decision, likely to be handed down before the end of July. Detail here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/07/18/tommy-robinsons-appeal-what-happened/

[HAL]

Where did Court of Appeal get reserved its decision likely to be handed down the end of July?

[Pies4shaw]

[think positive]

I finally googled this guy after 11 pages of wondering who the **** your talking about! Gees what a tool! Sounds like a stinking con man too. So who cares if he gets locked up? Sounds like a good thing!

[stui magpie]

[Skids]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEKKO3u7woo

[Pies4shaw]

I'm really looking forward to you posting a video of two people from, say, Lesotho, commenting on Robinson's next court appearance, because that'd be as relevant. That video is about as useful as getting Americans to tell us all how to drive properly on the left side of the road.

It's just appalling misinformation and you should be embarrassed linking it.

[HAL]

Does that make sense?

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment.pdf

It appears that his most recent conviction has been set aside but a new trial ordered. He's on bail pending the rehearing.

For those with short attention spans, the nub of the decision is in paragraph 10. The relevant part reads:

"For the reasons which follow, we have concluded that the appellant has no legitimate complaint about what occurred in Canterbury Crown Court. However, we are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand. We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."

As to Canterbury - at para 54: "It lies ill in the mouth of an appellant to complain of the failure of the court below to follow the appropriate procedural steps when that failure was fully appreciated at the time and remained deliberately uncorrected for tactical reasons and collateral advantage."

As to Leeds - at para 78: "The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall away. We canvassed with counsel what should happen were we minded to allow the appeal against the finding of contempt made in Leeds Crown Court. Mr Dein QC submitted that since the appellant has served the equivalent of four months' imprisonment the matter should not be remitted. We are unable to agree. First, the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against the appellant, particularly having regard to the suspended committal order made at Canterbury. Secondly, and in any event, a determination of the underlying contempt allegations in the circumstances of this case is in the public interest."

[Pi]

^,

lol, I think someone here suggested that the original judge made an error in procedure by presiding in a case he was also a plaintiff and a witness in. In other words Marsden was basically in contempt of his own court by not calling for an adjournment and having the case heard by a different judge.
Funniest legal fu#$ck up I've seen in years, unfortunately it may undermine the more serous and on going rape cases.