This is the guide for Judges / Magistrates on reporting restrictions, if I've read it correctly, a Judge / Magistrate cannot put a reporting restriction on a case unless it is first requested by the Defence / Prosecution. I didn't put this link up to debunk anything, but to give you the opportunity to read it, not all of it, just the parts referencing the procedures Judges / Magistrates should follow in regards to a reporting restriction request. I'm quite happy to be humble on this as word was there was a reporting restriction put on the case, no one could find any evidence of it though, but, according to the link below, the reporting restriction ends once the Jury trial ends. The accused had obviously been found guilty and the jury / trial had ended, the guilty rape gang reported back to the court house for sentencing. The reporting restriction only applied to England and Wales, and not Scotland and Northern Ireland, as they have their own Judicial systems and procedures, same applies to overseas countries. It can be argued that alternate media don't come under the same rules / laws as MSM as MSM require licences. To be honest, not sure on the requirements for Alternate media such as you tube. I read your link on the Telegraph, they got some of their info wrong, not surprising considering they're classed as far left fake news. Only now can it be revealed that he was jailed last week for 10 months for contempt of court and a further three months for breaching the terms of a previous suspended prison sentence. He admitted the offences. Martin Harding, defending Yaxley-Lennon, said his client knew of the reporting restrictions imposed on the case and felt “deep regret” after comprehending the potential consequences of his behaviour. The above seems to be incorrect. Judge Marsons told TR his previous suspended sentence case has nothing to do with this case and was irrelevant, Marsons apparently jailed TR for 13 months, not 10 and 3 months. TR admitted to the offence cos he was coerced by the court solicitor. The solicitor told TR to plead guilty and he would only get a month in jail or a suspended sentence. Had TR been granted due process (but he was denied his rights) and was able to see his solicitor and prepare his defense, chances are he would've pleaded not guilty. Robinson, 35, from Bedford, filmed himself reading out the defendants' names and the charges they face as well as him confronting them as they arrived outside court. The judge said: “He (TR) referred to the charges that the defendants faced and some charges which are not proceeded against in relation to some defendants.” The list of names TR was reading out had already been released and published to the public by MSM prior, he wasn't doing anything wrong...Telegraph lies again. The Far Right campaigner was arrested on suspicion of a breach of the peace. According to the LeedsLive website, the video footage was played to Judge Geoffrey Marson QC as Robinson, who has convictions dating back to 2005, sat in the dock. The above is incorrect, Judge Marsons has already admitted to trying TR without due process, he also admitted to not fully reviewing the whole of the video. The judge said the footage he streamed was seen by more than 250,000 people and had the potential to cause a long running trial to be derailed at the cost of “hundreds of thousands of pounds” of taxpayers’ money. Details of the case he was broadcasting about cannot be reported until later this year. An order banning reporting that Yaxley-Lennon had been jailed was later lifted . Regarding the above from Telegraph, Considering how fast TR was arrested, tried and jailed, how did Geoffrey Marsons come up with the figure of over 250,000 watched TR's stream, and how would it possibly derail a long running trial when the Jury had finished Jury duty quite a few days prior, and were probably in the White Swan or the Dry Dock enjoying a few well earned beers..........Can you see how a lot of things don't make sense. Tommy was arrested for suspicion of Breach of the Peace, he wasn't arrested for contempt of court. Is irrelevant - they had grounds to arrest him for breach of peace “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” I'm presuming you've seen the full video of TR outside the court house, and being arrested, if you haven't, you're doing a lot of guessing and/or clutching at straws. The police had no grounds to arrest TR for suspicion of breach of the peace as he wasn't doing any of the things you mentioned above. TR spanned the area outside Leeds Court House, there was no one there, so how can TR be doing any of the things you mentioned above.......Sorry DBC, those comments make no sense and are incorrect, so were the police in arresting TR. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf It would seem the debate has now wittled down to just the gagging order and other smaller situations. I'm presuming you've conceded on all the other points I made, some which have been repeated in this reply. The whole arrest / trial and jailing was a sham from beginning to end. It's going to be very hard for the appeal Judge to uphold Judge Marsons decision.
The case is for 28 in total so each individual would face all charges at once and not over the three trails.You may be right about witnesses though, however if that means a case gets adjourned for the day as a witness is at one of the other trails then so be it, if I was a witness I'd much rather get it over and done with over the course of a week or two, rather than keep reliving it every few months. The fact that so many were involved in the grooming is probably why the Police and the Authorities let it go on for so long, as it is a logistical nightmare, so they've turned a blind eye to what is effectively 'Mob rule' at the expence of vulnerable children. Maybe a change in the law is required but in this day and age trying to hush cases up will give people like Tommy Robinson a platform to expose the 'corruption' that exists, something like a press release naming the accused and the charges they face at the start of the trail and then the same at the end of the trail stating whether they were found guilty or not guilty and obviously giving the media a free reign to report on every detail that has been heard during the trail.
A lot of the bastards being paid six figure salaries to protect our children are the ones abusing them, this goes right to the top, have you ever heard of a copper called John Wedger?
Yes I saw a interview that was put up a couple of weeks ago which is very disturbing but actually explains how they got away with it at the BBC for so long, it is inexcusable for anyone to turn a blind eye to child grooming and to destroy someones career for digging too deep while trying to uphold the law is disgraceful. Tommy is being silenced not for just exposing Muslim grooming gangs but for opening up a can of worms of institutionised child abuse from the very fabric of government. Police,Politicians,Religious institutions,teachers,social workers are all to blame, those who turned a blind eye to it all need prosecuting as much as the dirty nonces who abused the vulnerable.
This is the guide for Judges / Magistrates on reporting restrictions, if I've read it correctly, a Judge / Magistrate cannot put a reporting restriction on a case unless it is first requested by the Defence / Prosecution. You'll find it in contempt of court: 4Contemporary reports of proceedings. (1)Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith. (2)In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/4 And the reporting restrictions are in place until all linked trials have been completed as with this case This eventually led to four separate trials, the first commencing in September 2015 and the final one which has just concluded, allowing previous reporting restrictions to be lifted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engla...e-40830816&link_location=live-reporting-story It can be argued that alternate media don't come under the same rules / laws as MSM as MSM require licences. To be honest, not sure on the requirements for Alternate media such as you tube. The judge in this case made it quite clear dating back to 2014 his opinion on this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-social-media-users-not-to-disrupt-trial.html The list of names TR was reading out had already been released and published to the public by MSM prior, he wasn't doing anything wrong...Telegraph lies again. Again this was when there was no reporting restrictions at the preliminary hearing. Since then there were reporting restrictions which is why you will find no reporting of the trial yet. You will find people filming and attending the trials but not yet broadcasting. how would it possibly derail a long running trial when the Jury had finished Jury duty quite a few days prior, and were probably in the White Swan or the Dry Dock enjoying a few well earned beers They might be but the jury of the next trial potentially could hear or see it. And that could prejudice the next linked trail. Which is why there are reporting restrictions until the end of all the linked trials. If you had a situation where the jury knows that the defendants in the previous linked trail have been found guilty then it would prejudice their opinion of the next trial. The police had no grounds to arrest TR for suspicion of breach of the peace as he wasn't doing any of the things you mentioned above. TR spanned the area outside Leeds Court House, there was no one there, so how can TR be doing any of the things you mentioned above.......Sorry DBC, those comments make no sense and are incorrect, so were the police in arresting TR. I'll refer you back to the secret barrister Police officers have common law powers (i.e. powers not set out in statute) to arrest somebody where a breach of the peace is committed or where the officer reasonably believes it will be committed in the immediate future. As to what constitutes a breach of the peace, it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad definition. The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are reasonable grounds to fear that a demonstrator or protestor is likely to incite violence, even violence against themselves. This appears to be applicable to the present case. Robinson provocatively filming defendants and streaming on Facebook for the edification of his cult, is the kind of thing which could, it might be argued, lead to a breach of the peace. Once a person has been arrested for breaching the peace, the police have the power to detain that person where there is a real apprehension that if released they will renew the breach of the peace within a short time, and where the police believe that further detention is necessary to prevent this. Given Robinson’s history of interfering with criminal trials and his defiance towards court orders, one can see why the police may have genuinely feared that he would have simply returned to court if not detained. The power of detention is time-limited – the detainee must be released within 24 hours (if not charged), or for serious (indictable) offences, detention may be authorised up to 96 hours. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ I'm presuming you've conceded on all the other points I made - Not at all I just ration how many points I can offer a counterpoint to and some of them which are posted as fact without any evidence and obviously built upon the heresay of dubious sources I largely ignore. Stuff like; TR admitted to the offence cos he was coerced by the court solicitor. The solicitor told TR to plead guilty and he would only get a month in jail or a suspended sentence. Had TR been granted due process (but he was denied his rights) and was able to see his solicitor and prepare his defense, chances are he would've pleaded not guilty. The whole arrest / trial and jailing was a sham from beginning to end. It's going to be very hard for the appeal Judge to uphold Judge Marsons decision. Until the judge releases their judgement like his previous conviction https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-20170522.pdf it'll be difficult to fully address these points and as far as I'm aware they've yet to be published.
I didn't realise being a useful idiot was a paid job, how much does the evil old bastard pay these days ?
He pays a pint of tears from racists per post but he’s got a pretty plentiful supply of those at the moment.
Ok, I think you're going to keep going around in circles by looking up old news and laws, but never offer evidence as such. I'm presuming you've conceded on all the other points I made - Not at all I just ration how many points I can offer a counterpoint to and some of them which are posted as fact without any evidence and obviously built upon the heresay of dubious sources I largely ignore. Stuff like; Let's look at what you can't deny, or make excuses for cos it actually happened. While near the steps, the Police didn't inform TR there was a gagging order........probably cos they thought TR wasn't doing anything wrong, or, they didn't think one was in place themselves. Tommy scanned the street area with his camera, there were no one there...........therefore, TR couldn't have, and wasn't doing anything to incite violence, or any of the other offences you mentioned below. it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad The Police had no grounds to arrest TR on suspicion of Breach of the Peace. Tommy was not a demonstrator or Protester, as was mentioned in your linked comments below. The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are reasonable grounds to fear that a demonstrator or protestor is likely to incite violence, even violence against themselves. This appears to be applicable to the present case. Robinson provocatively filming defendants and streaming on Facebook for the edification of his cult, is the kind of thing which could, it might be argued, lead to a breach of the peace. You yourself mentioned TR was filming for the eradication of his cult.......This is a false accusation made by you without factual evidence as TR does not have, nor runs a cult. He acts alone and posts his findings for the people of Britain and the World to see.............That's one hell of a cult, don't you think. Police told TR's Solicitor she need'nt bother driving up to Leeds cos TR was being released.......These were lies, the Police are in breach of their oath, acted corruptly, and lied in order to get an innocent person into court and convicted, in other words, TR was set up and railroaded in a Kangaroo court set up by Geoffrey Marsons QC...........Documented. TR was denied his legal rights, in that he was lied too, and prevented from seeing his own Solicitor in order to prepare his defense.........Railroaded...and Documented. Tommy was arrested for suspicion of Breach of the Peace, this means there couldn't have been a contempt of court, if there were, that would've been the arresting charge...........Railroaded. The court Solicitor coerced Tommy into pleading guilty by giving Tommy wrong full information. Judge Marsons told TR his previous suspended sentence doesn't count in this case, and it was irrelevant, Marsons went on to tell TR he was being tried for the present case only............Marsons gave TR 13 months jail for contempt of court, contempt of court in regards to the so called gagging order put out on the Muslim rape gangs trial..........not contempt of court for the previous suspended sentence. The was no contempt of court (arguable) cos the so called gagging order covered the jury trial. The Jury trial was over and the Jury found the Muslim rape gang guilty, case over. Tommy was at Leeds Crown court for the sentencing, which is not a trial. The so called gagging order did not cover the next trial, it couldn't have, Judge Marsons put a gagging order on the TR case untill the 2 case numbers were over...documented. The gagging order on the TR case was lifted just after TR was jailed. I believe Marsons was told to lift the gagging order as he had stepped outside his authoritative boundaries. If there was a gagging order put on the next trial (without the jury even being picked) there was no need or reason to put a gagging order on the TR case.......in addition, if Judge Marsons is not the presiding Judge at the next trial in September, he has no authority to issue a gagging order, that responsibility lies with the assigned Judge. By the way, it seems Judge Geoffrey Marsons is addicted to putting gagging orders on court cases he presides over. Judge Marsons changed the charge to contempt of court cos he knew he couldn't get TR on Breach of the Peace..........Railroaded. Judge Marsons was seen at the window smirking prior to TR's arrest, why was it prior, cos the female Officer involved in arresting TR was also in the window along side Marsons. Marsons could not be a witness to what TR was doing, and preside as Judge over his case.......Marsons broke the law, several times it seems. This alone is cause for appeal / retrial / quashed. Judge Marsons admitted to not reviewing all the evidence before jailing TR.........Marsons also admitted to trying, and jailing TR without due process.....Marsons broke the law and Breached his Oath on several occasions.......Documented......Due Process means TR was denied his legal rights, and procedures by both the Police and Marsons himself.........corrupt coppers and a judge = Railroaded. Tommy was moved from a low risk prison to a higher risk prison, but I doubt by MOJ David Gauk as he was responsible for TR's safety. Everyones saying it came from the top, our Muslim Home Secretary Sajid Javid..........corrupt home secretary. An appeal for Tommy has been lodged. Once the appeal is granted, which is likely, everything you've mentioned becomes invalid. Everything above has happened with the majority documented. I won't be replying to, or commenting on any of the above in future to save going around in circles. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... And the reporting restrictions are in place until all linked trials have been completed as with this case This eventually led to four separate trials, the first commencing in September 2015 and the final one which has just concluded, allowing previous reporting restrictions to be lifted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-engla...e-40830816&link_location=live-reporting-story Your comments and link don't match up, nor make any sense. The link you provided is for the Newcastle Muslim rape gang case, and has nothing to do with the recent case The judge in this case made it quite clear dating back to 2014 his opinion on this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-social-media-users-not-to-disrupt-trial.html The link and case above is from 2014, nothing to do with the present cases, irrespective of what Judge Marsons said. "Judge Geoffrey Marson QC issued the stern warning at Leeds Crown Court, saying “users of any social media sites and bloggers are just as constrained by these rules as the press. The consequences for individuals, I want to emphasise, can be serious if there is a breach.” Regarding the above, Marsons does not have any authority over any overseas social media sites or bloggers, nor in Scotland and N/Ireland it seems. Also, the fact that Marsons issued a warning to users of social media sites and bloggers says Social media, of any kind were not included in the gagging order, print wise. Marsons does not have the authority to tell users of social media and blogger sites what they can and can't do........as previously mentioned, seems Marsons is addicted and obsessed with issuing gagging orders. The list of names TR was reading out had already been released and published to the public by MSM prior, he wasn't doing anything wrong...Telegraph lies again. Again this was when there was no reporting restrictions at the preliminary hearing. Since then there were reporting restrictions which is why you will find no reporting of the trial yet. You will find people filming and attending the trials but not yet broadcasting. Once details and information has been released to the public, and it becomes public knowledge, there is nothing Marsons, or any other Judge can do about it; it's already out there, the public already know about it. Tommy wasn't releasing any details that the public didn't already know. The Newspapers had already published the details, they were printed in black and white..........What's Marsons going to do, put a banning order out that bans everyone from reading old newspapers, or stop them from watching older home made DVD's with the news and details already on them. how would it possibly derail a long running trial when the Jury had finished Jury duty quite a few days prior, and were probably in the White Swan or the Dry Dock enjoying a few well earned beers They might be but the jury of the next trial potentially could hear or see it. And that could prejudice the next linked trail. Which is why there are reporting restrictions until the end of all the linked trials. If you had a situation where the jury knows that the defendants in the previous linked trail have been found guilty then it would prejudice their opinion of the next trial. mmmmm, regarding the above. Do you think the fact that the Muslim rape gang turned up to court for sentencing might have already informed the next Jury of their guilt, even though it may of not been picked yet.......Do you also think the world wide reaction, and all the marches and rallies may have given it away as to what happened. It's going to be very hard for the appeal Judge to uphold Judge Marsons decision. Until the judge releases their judgement like his previous conviction https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-20170522.pdfit'll be difficult to fully address these points and as far as I'm aware they've yet to be published. Based on all the evidence put forward to the appeal Judge, and Marsons own admissions, as well as the police lies, I doubt very much the appeal Judge will uphold Marsons decisions. Once the appeal is granted, it becomes a different story.............Marsons will now have several black marks put against his name by the Judiciary ruling body. A breach of Oath, as well as corruption by a Judge is looked upon very seriously indeed by the ruling body, as may well be the case for the officer / s who lied to Tommy's Solicitor.........chances are, the public won't hear about it. I'm presuming you've conceded on all the other points I made - Not at all I just ration how many points I can offer a counterpoint to and some of them which are posted as fact without any evidence and obviously built upon the heresay of dubious sources I largely ignore. Stuff like; For someone who largely ignores evidence from hearsay and dubious sources, you certainly make your feelings clear about these dubious sources you largely ignore.
Youre wasting your time on these brainwashed lefties LL save yourself the trouble mate id hazard a guess he went to university, probably in the student union . Makes you wonder why they go after someone who speaks out about rape gangs and not the perpetrators, maybe they like the young'uns themselves , just a thought
Can't imagine why anybody would be pissed off at some self-serving **** who puts at risk trials which could see possible ****philes set free on technicalities due to his ego driven ****foolery. Especially when he had no problem defending his own *****phile https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/176587/*****-rap-for-EDL-leader Makes you wonder why the far-right go after Muslim ****philes almost as if they need a scapegoat to avoid people looking closer to home https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/race-hate-thug-who-chanted-7916756 https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2015/01/07/britain-first-officer-on-sex-offenders-register/ just a thought.
