jgw2001

The Jury, the victim (who is under 16), witnesses enter the same door. By him videoing out side the court, he is at risk revealing the the identities of these Individuals hence the reason why there is a ban of recording outside the courts during a trial. Even in his own video he admits “There is a reporting restriction on this case,” and continues "I have to be super careful, you see, because when I was coming to these court cases, part of what the police did was they dawn raided me and they put me on a contempt of court charge, which would mean that I could face prison.”

At the time of his live broadcast the jury had not made their official decision, some times the Jury may ask for more time or need further advise before making the final decision OR a JURY member is not able to attend and more time may be needed. The Jury reveals their verdict to both the accused and the judge at the same time. The ban of videoing out side the court is also to protect the Victim who may also be entering the same doors (in this case the victim is under 16) or revealing the members of the Jury who would be entering court at the time of his live broadcast. I see the media ban has now been lifted, and the real truth is finally out.

To answer you question: Is it fair to say that what Tommy Robinson has said on his video recording or what could be heard around him was information fully in the possession of the public (anyone else could have gathered the same) at the time and around his incarceration? No, not everything he said was in the public domain at the point he made the broadcast. From the recent news release he has admitted guilt and clearly knew there was a media restriction in place. Also point out, 13 months in prison in the UK is not 13 months but on average he is most likely to only serve 6 months.

Just another update. It looks now as if the accused and those convicted are filing a motion for mistral under their article 6 rights. So the people who he campaigned against could be set free because of his actions, well done Tommy. Regarding if I agree with the law or not, lets use standard Libertarian property rights principles: 1) He enters private property, with signs clearly saying no filming, a clear contract he agreed to when he entered. 2) He decided to breach the ruling, and was "kidnapped", and "incarcerated" for 3 months and warning he does not do it again. 3) He does it again, enters private property and starts filming again. Another example, if I had signs on my property/land signs "You will be shoot if you enter", it may be army base or wild life centre to protect rare animals, if you enter my property despite the warning then based on the property principle you risk being shoot especially if you are warned. Tommy was warned plenty of times even in his bloody face With recent cases of false arrest by the police and media circle which exists in the UK (and not to the same extant as the US) then article 6 of the right to a fair trail is VERY IMPORTANT. While it is not perfect, it is all we have. End of rant.

Just want to repeat the facts that we already know: 1) Tommy was convicted last year (of the same charge) got three months and 18 months suspended sentence. Please understand what a suspended sentence is. 2) WITH IN 12 months, he videos and reveals the names of the accused including the name of the those who are currently on trail. 3) He was charged with contempt of court, breaching his bail conditions and because of the current suspended sentence was sent to prison for 13 months. 4) Reporting restrictions currently still apply, as a number of individuals are still currently on trail indirectly related to the case. Information on reporting restrictions: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf Reporting restrictions also exist in other western countries for court cases including Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_ban While some may be against these reporting restrictions, then maybe we should discuss the recent cases of individuals being declared by the media circle as paedophiles, after going to court getting a not guilty verdict. They have lost their kids, family, house and job. Some trails have fallen apart due to indirect influence on the Jury by the media, hence the reason depending on the case reporting restrictions may be required. In the United States, while reporting restrictions do not apply, I have read cases how they have to keep the Jury away from the TV, newspapers and kept insulated in a hotel while the trail takes place. Like or hate what Tommy had done, his indirect actions could have resulted in cases collapsing and potential paedophiles being set free, he knew exactly what he was doing. The accused involved in the case could be let off under the UK human rights act article 6: ---- Article 6 Right to a fair trial 1I n the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. ----

Court order banning media coverage: Also, the 18 months suspended sentence from last year: www DOT dailymail DOT co DOT uk/wires/pa/article-4545794/Ex-EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson-spared-jail-contempt-court.html

Here is the case reported on Tommy last year: He was given a 18 months suspended sentience. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4545794/Ex-EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson-spared-jail-contempt-court.html

That is good Richard, however due to Tommy revealing the names of the accused these individuals could get off scot free due to "technicality". Here is the case reported on Tommy last year: He was given a 18 months suspended sentience. www DOT dailymail DOT co DOT uk/wires/pa/article-4545794/Ex-EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson-spared-jail-contempt-court.html

Here is some more information, why he has been sent directly to prison..

I have attached the court order regarding the ban of the media coverage. As clearly stated, coverage is restricted until after two other trails. Tommy 13 months, is related to this breach and a suspending sentience for two other cases.

"The 'accused' have already been declared guilty. He was not influencing the Jury. " Few points: - He recorded the previous day and revealed the identities including those who are currently ON TRAIL - Media coverage has NOT yet been lifted as other members are still on trial and these cases are indirectly linked. "His suspended sentence was for three months although he has been arrested for 13" Also has a suspended sentience for fraud. "He was arrested for Breach of the Peace although nothing he was doing was breaching the peace." Yes, that what he was arrested for, and the police always use the "Breach of the Peace" as it can be used for virtually anything "How many times have you seen the media outside other court cases, such as Count Dankula's?" Yep, we the Scottish Libertarians was outside the court in Falkirk however this is due to SNP law which we are continuously campaigning against. We blame the government policy not the legal system. It was covered by the local media including BBC Scotland and STV the two main local channels. Anything else ?

No, media restriction was NOT YET lifted, and he was recording the day before. Regarding media coverage: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/reporting-restrictions-guide-2015-final.pdf Also full discussion on Scottish Libertarians facebook group : https://www.facebook.com/groups/scottishlibertarians/ Please remember to read the WHOLE thread.

Are you talking about the police or the courts? I do have faith in the UK high court system when a jury is involved. While the legal system is not perfect, it is all we have, and we need to allow the legal system to work and not undermine it like Tommy has done. Sorry, but do have faith in the legal system, but it should be noted the police is separate from the courts. Do I have faith in the police system, well, i would say I have mix views .

It is up to the courts, but what is important is to allow for a fair trial . As soon as someone is charged, you won't hear about the case (or most cases) in the media until the verdict. Tommy was warned, and ignored the warning and knew exactly what he was doing. There was a recent fallout between the UK and the US last year, during the Manchester bombing case when Donald Trump (or someone in the white house) revealed the names of the individual charged. The UK government for several weeks restricted the US access to the UK security/police database. What is important is when a trial occurs that it is fair as possible. Tommy, I am sure will also get a fair trial, if he gets a Jury trial.

Because he is being charged "again". IF there is a Jury trial, then you cant have anything that may influence the decision of the Jury, and any reports of the arrest could affect the jury decision of the ongoing case. Just watched his hour broadcast, and he revealed the names of the accused and even confronted the accused saying "Do you have you prison bags with you" , " Do you have any remorse what you did". At that time the accused have not yet been convicted. I was nearly selected as a jury in a high court for a Rape Case, however as the guy was popular in the area the case was held on the other side of the country, they at the end had to re-select the Jury as one of the members knew or had knowledge of the accused. There were strict controls on reporting, to the point when he got a non-proven verdict there was no media coverage as if the case never happened. Because of Tommy actions the whole trail/case could fall apart.