Sean Thornton
I say a little prayer….
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,549
- Reaction score
- 114,303
"Tommy was sent to prison for 13 months for reading an already published BBC article about the rape case; this article was IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE TIME and still is today.
If you search for 'Huddersfield grooming gang' in Google, you will find the very same article on the BBC website.
Why would Tommy, reading that article on livestream amount to contempt and prejudice the trial, when the same article, ALREADY published on the BBC website to millions of people does not?
As confirmed in the appeal hearing two weeks ago, at the time of Tommy’s live stream, the jury were in retirement for the verdict.
The news reports in the press, informing that Tommy would have prejudiced the jury and that the trial would collapse, were absolute rubbish! The jury had retired and were already deciding the verdict. Tommy’s live stream had no impact at all on the proceedings. If anything, the judge’s treatment of Tommy has, in fact, brought a global spotlight on these gang rape trials.
At no time was Tommy or his court appointed lawyer asked if the contempt was in fact accepted. They did not ask him to plead and he did not plead guilty, despite it being printed in every national newspaper. They did not even explain what his contempt actually was!
It is a basic entitlement for an accused to be clear as to the precise nature of the allegation faced, but this was just one of many criminal procedure rules they decided to bypass in Tommy’s case.
The appeal hearing exposed the fact that all the relevant criminal procedure rules were bypassed in this trial presumably due to the rush to put him behind bars and silence him, so, THE RULE BOOK WENT 'OUT OF THE WINDOW'!
Contempt of court is solely in the judge’s control, there are strict criminal procedure rules that must be followed to ensure a fair trial. There is also precedent that suggests if these are not followed, the conviction should be quashed. This trial was unfair, inappropriate and wrong, leading to significant prejudice for Tommy.
The judges at the appeal hearing seemed very fair and balanced but if Tommy's appeal is not successful, given the numerous criminal procedure rules that were ignored and the precedent set previously, then this will tell us one thing: For everyone else, the judiciary needs to follow the criminal procedure rules, but for Tommy Robinson, they do what they like!"
I thought he was streaming on Facebook Live?
All the newspapers - when the reporting restrictions were lifted - say he did plead guilty and that his brief made reference to the Judge about dangers to him if imprisoned. Based on what happened before.
Guardian, Mail, all across the spectrum, told the same story.

