Tommy Robinson arrested

[Jarnhamar]

Wasn't sure where to put this.

Tommy Robinson was arrested today in Leeds, in the UK, outside the court.

A few hours later he was sentenced to 13 months in prison.

I’ve never heard of that before.

Normally, there’s an alleged offence; then an arrest; then the lawyers get involved; then a first court appearance; and maybe bail; and then disclosure of documents; then a trial; then a conviction; then a sentence. Normally that takes months; maybe years.

It happened today in a few hours.


https://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_show_may_25_2018

Also

ENGLISH Defence League founder Tommy Robinson was today arrested on suspicion of breaching the peace while filming outside court.

The 35-year-old was at Leeds Crown Court on Friday morning and started a live feed on his Facebook page as a child grooming case continued.



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6376643/tommy-robinson-english-defence-league-edl-arrested-facebook-video-grooming-trial/

Sentenced to 13 months, I get that's longer than the guys charged with grooming children for prostitution get.

The flash to bang of his arrest and sentencing seems pretty quick too.

 

[brihard]

So far as I can tell from credible sources (which The Rebel is not), Robinson was already under a suspended sentence for a a previous conviction for contempt of court. A suspended sentence means you're found guilty and sentenced, but instead of going in the clink you serve the sentence in the community subject to probation conditions. If you violate, you can be simply ordered by the judge to be remanded in custody to serve your sentence that way since you didn't follow the rules. It does not require new charges or convictions. In Britain, a judge may immediately sentence someone for contempt of court. pretty much as soon as it happens, and contempt of court needn't happen right in the court room.

I'm speculating, but I would guess he was breached on his prior conviction and suspended sentence, and then because he was essentially trying to livestream ongoing proceedings that are subject to their version of a publication ban to prevent a child victim, he probably had a sentence for contempt handed down immediately.

Maybe he'll finally smarten up and learn... But I doubt it. Robinson is not a nice fellow.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why do you think he's not a nice fellow?

Granted I'm not a feverant follower of his but in the times I have seen him he doesn't seem or sound like a scumbag. He usually seems to be the one at the end of the abuse. I remember him actually tracking someone down and asking the facebooker why he felt it was okay to threaten him (Tommy) and his mother.

I didn't realize he was already under a suspended sentence. Contempt of court  outside of the courtroom seems weird.  I wonder if it's true when he says that other journalists were using names as well but went unnoticed/unbothered.

 

[Blackadder1916]

When I saw the topic, I wondered who the **** is Tommy Robinson and should I be concerned that he was arrested.  I quickly came to the conclusion that I really don't care about Mr. Lennon (his true name) nor could I give an arse that he's been arrested (again) and been summarily dealt with by a court.  My speculation (and opinion) as to the circumstances of Mr. Lennon's offence is much the same as Brihard's.  As to the seemingly quick judgement, perhaps this (from the Crown Prosecution Service) may provide some indication as to the mindset for such quickness and severity.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

Practice and Procedure for dealing with Criminal Contempt

In Morris v Crown Office [1970] 2 Q.B. 114, CA the Court of Appeal stated that, in order to maintain law and order (upon which freedom depends) the judges have a wide power “to deal at once with those who interfere with the administration of justice.” R v Dodds [2002] EWCA Crim 1328 sets out the minimum requirements for a fair hearing where the contempt is dealt with summarily. These include that the contemnor is told what they are said to have done wrong, understand the defences available, has a reasonable opportunity to make representations and to seek legal advice.

The summary procedure for criminal courts dealing with criminal contempt is set out at Rule 48.5 CrimPR. The court explains the conduct and sets out the court’s powers, allows the respondent an opportunity to apologise, and decides whether to take no further action or in the alternative to enquire into the conduct there and then. The Crown Court can postpone the enquiry to another day and arrange for statements to be provided. However that enquiry must be done on the same day in the magistrates’ court, although the enquiry can be put back until later in the day.

Generally, resort to the summary procedure will be justified where there is a need for the court to act decisively, to show that its authority has not been undermined, and to demonstrate that behaviour of the kind perpetrated will never be tolerated and that it will be dealt with quickly and severely.

Crown Court power to deal with criminal contempt

The Crown Court is a superior court of record (s 45(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981) but its inherent power to make an order of committal of its own motion is restricted. It can deal with contempt "in the face of the court", which has been interpreted broadly and is not confined to contempt seen by the judge; disobedience of a court order, or breach of an undertaking to the court (DPP v Channel Four Television Co. Ltd. [1993] 2 All E.R 517).

A Crown Court judge's power to commit summarily for contempt should be exercised only where the contempt is clear and it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. In the absence of urgency, the matter should be referred to the Attorney General to consider bringing proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division (Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73).

The summary procedure at Rule 48.5 applies in the Crown Court where the court observes, or someone reports to the court, a contravention of s3 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (disobeying a witness summons), s20 of the Juries Act 1974 (disobeying a jury summons), s8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (obtaining details of a jury’s deliberations, etc.), s9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (without the court’s permission, recording the proceedings, etc.) or any other conduct with which the court can deal as, or as if it were, a criminal contempt of court. Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for a maximum period of committal of 2 years in the Crown Court.

In R v Callum Iain McLeod [2001] Crim. L.R. 589, the Court of Appeal held there was no reason why a trial judge could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal for proceedings for contempt of court. Sometimes the contempt may be sufficiently serious to justify proceedings for a criminal offence (for example perverting the course of justice or witness interference); however the court may prefer to deal with the conduct as part of its inherent jurisdiction to administer justice in a speedy and orderly manner, thus avoiding the public cost of separate proceedings and investigation, provided that its sentencing powers are sufficient to reflect the severity of the conduct.

When a Crown Court judge indicates that he/she wishes to deal with someone for contempt, prosecutors must ensure that prosecuting counsel is in a position to assist the court with as much information as possible, including relevant authorities. When contempt is not admitted, the enquiry should take place at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Jarnhamar]

There's apparently a publication ban but other media published names the Rebel says.  I'm looking to see if anyone else was  arrested as well.  Also I'm curious to see if the men charged with rape and forced prostitution recieved longer sentences than Tommy.

 

[brihard]

There's apparently a publication ban but other media published names the Rebel says.  I'm looking to see if anyone else was  arrested as well.  Also I'm curious to see if the men charged with rape and forced prostitution recieved longer sentences than Tommy.

More at issue is whether in fact they are convicted. His behaviour compromised the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. That’s a big deal.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It says they were in court that day to hear the verdict of their trial. So would that mean the decision was already made?

What's your take on the discrepancy between what the police told him he was being arrested for and what the court docket said? (breach of the peace  vice contempt of Court).

In Canada if police tell me I'm being arrested for one thing but in court it says something else is that grounds for any sort of challange or just tough cookies for me?

 

[Haggis]

In Canada if police tell me I'm being arrested for one thing but in court it says something else is that grounds for any sort of challenge or just tough cookies for me?

Here's an example.  If you drive straight through customs and get bagged by the long arm of the law down the road, they will arrest you for "running the port".  You won't find that wording specifically in the Customs Act.  However, when you are released with paperwork which tells you when and where to appear in court and what, exactly, you are charged with, those forms will describe the offence in more legal terms.  It's the wording of this document (Form 10, for example) which is the true alleged offence.

 

[Jarnhamar]

U.K. Independence Party leader and European MP Gerard Batten later tweeted: "I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on. Where he can be cast into prison without it being possible to report his name, offense, or place of imprisonment for fear of contempt of court. Can anyone remember such a case?"

Shortly after Robinson's arrest and imprisonment thousands of British citizens took to the streets to protest what had happened.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/31130/watch-protests-erupt-after-activist-jailed-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, the modern British establishment seems to think "1984" is a "how to" book.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Despite the "outrage" of Tommy Robinson's* Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's supporters and their surprise that he could be spirited away, tried and sentenced so swiftly, I don't think that the subject of this discussion was under any illusion that such action was not to be his fate.  He had already been found in contempt of court on a previous occasion for doing, in essence, the same thing and the judge in that instance made it very clear what his future held.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt-of-court-in-open-court-at-the-crown-court-at-canterbury-yaxley-lennon/

. . .

Would you stand up, please. I take, as I hope has been made very clear by the comments that I have made, a very dim view indeed of your conduct which was in the face of repeated warnings that you should not do that which you did do. I accept what Mr. Kovalevsky tells me about the dangers that you might face were you to be sent into immediate custody. I have to say it is on a knife edge so far as I am concerned because a very large part of me thinks so what? you could be put into protective custody. But, my concern is to make sure that this trial keeps on track, and my concern is also to make sure that other courts with other trials in similar situations are kept on track without any danger of repetition of the kind of conduct that we have had visited upon us here. The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

. . .

*Sorry, but every time I see the name "Tommy Robinson", I immediately think of Sir Tony Robinson whose performance as "Baldrick" in all its iterations is memorably enjoyable, thus for my own selfish reasons I will refer to the person being discussed in this thread by his legal name.

 

[Jarnhamar]

judge prohibited reporting of the verdict within the United Kingdom. No major British outlet reported on the sentence

I wonder why the judge prohibited reporting of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's verdict.

 

[mariomike]

Unsourced quote Reply #11,

"judge prohibited reporting of the verdict within the United Kingdom. No major British outlet reported on the sentence"
https://www.google.com/search?ei=9RMLW9_rNYefjwT_gJuwCQ&q=%22judge+prohibited+reporting+of+the+verdict+within+the+United+Kingdom.+No+major+British+outlet+reported+on+the+sentence%22&oq=%22judge+prohibited+reporting+of+the+verdict+within+the+United+Kingdom.+No+major+British+outlet+reported+on+the+sentence%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.58561.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.VloOWP-_XMo

I wonder why the judge prohibited reporting of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's verdict.

Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
April 2015 (Revised May 2016)
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thank's MM.  Could you show me exactly where in the second link you provided it explains why the judge prohibited the reporting of his sentence?

Para 5.5 committal of contempt of Court seems to suggest it should have been public? Also 5.3 if I'm reading it correctly.

 

[mariomike]

Thank's MM.

You are welcome. 

Could you show me exactly where in the second link you provided it explains why the judge prohibited the reporting of his sentence?

No. I'm not an expert in British ( or any other ) law. All I did was provide you an official source of reference you could search in reply to your question,
"I wonder why the judge prohibited reporting of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's verdict."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering the issue he is reporting on, I would suspect the authorities are using the law to their advantage. Would not be the first time, nor the last. The more they try to put out this spark, the more the heat will build  elsewhere and when it burns, it will not be nice. It would have been better to let him report on the general proceedings.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I wonder why the judge prohibited reporting of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon's verdict.

This is what the judge said https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeEjgEgVwAAbWdE.jpg:large

As to the judge's reasons for the committal for contempt, I expect that the written report of his judgement will be shortly forthcoming and will likely be available on the UK judiciary website (just like the one linked in my previous posting).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/practice-direction-committals-for-contempt.pdf

Judgments
13. (1) In all cases, irrespective of whether the court has conducted the hearing in
public or in private, and the court finds that a person has committed a
contempt of court, the court shall at the conclusion of that hearing sit in public
and state:
(i) the name of that person;
(ii) in general terms the nature of the contempt of court in respect of which
the committal order, which for this purpose includes a suspended
committal order, is being made;
(iii) the punishment being imposed; and
(iv) provide the details required by (i) to (iii) to the national media, via the
CopyDirect service, and to the Judicial Office, at
judicialwebupdates@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk, for publication on the website
of the Judiciary of England and Wales.
(2) There are no exceptions to these requirements. There are never any
circumstances in which any one may be committed to custody or made
subject to a suspended committal order without these matters being stated
by the court sitting in public.
14. In addition to the requirements at paragraph 13, the court shall, in respect of all
committal decisions, also either produce a written judgment setting out its reasons
or ensure that any oral judgment is transcribed, such transcription to be ordered
the same day as the judgment is given and prepared on an expedited basis. It
shall do so irrespective of its practice prior to this Practice Direction coming into
force and irrespective of whether or not anyone has requested this.
15. Copies of the written judgment or transcript of judgment shall then be provided to
the parties and the national media via the CopyDirect service. Copies shall also
be supplied to BAILII and to the Judicial Office at
judicialwebupdates@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk for publication on their websites as soon
as reasonably practicable.
16. Advocates and the judge (except judges and justices of the peace in the
Magistrates’ courts) shall be robed for all committal hearings.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's incredibly broad and undemocratic. His reporting cannot influence events in the court room. The various administrations ignored the allegations of the child grooming for years and now are trying to keep the lid on things. I can see a court order protecting information that might lead to directly identifying the kids involved, but a blanket order is to much and failure by the judge to balance the needs of the court and the needs of democracy. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's incredibly broad and undemocratic. His reporting cannot influence events in the court room. The various administrations ignored the allegations of the child grooming for years and now are trying to keep the lid on things. I can see a court order protecting information that might lead to directly identifying the kids involved, but a blanket order is to much and failure by the judge to balance the needs of the court and the needs of democracy.

Have you read much about what's going on in the UK and all the Child grooming and sex slavery going on? It's insane.

700 women and kids around Newcastle with a report suggesting police punished the victims.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-uk-britain-newcastle-serious-case-review-operation-sanctuary-shelter-muslim-asian-a8225106.html

In Tommy's case I too don't see how his actions would have  affected things that day. Unless the jury would somehow hear him and all of a sudden change their verdict, which seems unlikely.

Still waiting to hear what that gangs sentence will be.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes I have, why there are not the heads of police forces and politicians on spikes outside the gates, I don't know. I suspect they will try to keep the lid on till the pressures blows up in their face and you have "race riots" in the streets. Sadly not dealing with the issues early has done a major disservice to the Muslim community that does abide by the law, as they will get caught up in any large scale riots and it will make the situation worse.