July 9th 2019
by Guest Author @JanfUK
‘The background to last week’s trial at the Old Bailey where Tommy Robinson was found guilty of Contempt of Court is that in May 2018 he was arrested, tried, sentenced and imprisoned in the space of under five hours for live streaming men charged with rape outside Leeds court as they were entering the court to hear their verdict.
At that time, Tommy Robinson wasn’t even allowed to speak to his own solicitor. At his appeal hearing in August 2018, the appeal judge ruled that his initial arrest, trial and sentence in May 2018 and also how he was treated in jail was illegal and improper on several levels. He was released after serving almost 3 months in solitary confinement.
New charges were then brought against him, and he was found guilty last week by a judge, not a jury.
Here are the reasons given in court: –
- ‘Causing anxiety’ to child gang rapists by asking them how they feel about their trial as they were walking into the court to hear their verdict. This was AFTER their trial had finished. He was not aggressive – his line of questioning was no different to that of MSM journalists asking him how he felt after his trial last week – standing outside a court live-streaming information about those child gang rapists that was already in the public domain (information that the BBC had already reported). The law states that courts have no right to prevent journalists from communicating information (in this case, names of those charged) that is already in the public domain.
- ‘Breaching reporting restrictions’ even though the courts failed to communicate that there were any reporting restrictions in the way they are legally obliged to do so (on their website and on the court door). During the trial, the court heard how Tommy checked whether the trial in Leeds was subject to reporting restrictions in the proper manner and on finding that no reporting restrictions were communicated on the website or court door he ALSO went into the court beforehand to double check for good measure. He was told that there weren’t any reporting restrictions.
The judge ruling last week’s case admitted that the court had failed to communicate reporting restrictions in the proper manner (which was verified in the trial by a witness representing the court) and acknowledged that the information given on the government’s website was wrong.
But the judge decided that Tommy should have assumed there were reporting restrictions because the mainstream media were not reporting from outside the court.
Which of the above ‘wrongdoings’ deserves a jail sentence?
Bear in mind that no-one has been imprisoned for contempt of court in the last 60 years, even when their actions have almost led to the collapse of a trial (eg Rod Liddle).
It’s worth mentioning that the judge who originally sentenced Tommy Robinson on May 18th (illegally) later acknowledged that there was nothing in Tommy’s live stream that could have jeopardised the collapse of the case. He came to this conclusion after he watched the full recording of the livestream which he had not watched in full prior to finding Tommy guilty and rushing to sentence him on 18th May.
Tommy Robinson has reported on grooming and gang rape court cases in this way in response to the authorities’ incompetence and deliberate failure to deal with this gang rape epidemic occurring in every town and city where there is a significant Muslim population. A key motive was to inform families in areas where these criminals are let out on bail to continue to work in the kebab shops and taxi ranks they use as a base from which to groom young girls.
Long bail periods are often given even when there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt, enabling them to continue to operate. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of girls have been groomed, raped, tortured, trafficked and even murdered by gangs of predominantly Muslim men acting with impunity.
The person who has been speaking louder than anyone else about these atrocities is being persecuted by the state on trumped-up charges because he’s embarrassing the government, exposing their wrongdoing and their sickening complicity in these heinous crimes.’