Our English correspondent Seneca III was present at the trial of Tommy Robinson last Thursday. Below is his report.
The Trial of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
by Seneca III
In fully-fledged Police States where the Law, Civil or Criminal, is whatever the ruling Junta says it is there is no right of access to fair and impartial legal processes. There is only a perverted form of ‘justice’ designed for and used in the public show trials of ‘Enemies of the State’.
The principal control mechanisms of such State entities really are simple and straightforward — physical brutality, including torture, arbitrary incarceration and summary execution — and the concealment thereof is generally and with deliberate intent quite minimal — universal public knowledge thereof serves to frighten and intimidate the subject population so that it submits to and obeys the diktats of the ruling entity, thus precluding protest or counter-action.
However in embryonic, quasi-Police States, such as are now in the latter stages of their gestation all across the West — particularly within that inappropriately named behemoth, the European Union — lip service still has to be paid to the remnants of the original, idealised concept of one Rule of Law for all. Up to now this lip service, whilst being nothing more than comforting noises designed to conceal a real and different intent, has been paid quite subtly so that in general its common purpose (no pun intended) has slipped below the conceptual radar of the body politic.
Now, fortunately, in one revealing moment this intent has, perhaps out of a hubris generated by the past successes of its implementers, stumbled into the open, its methodology glaringly exposed. In this demonstration of its reality we saw how ‘Political Correctness’, together with the latter’s bastard spawn ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Racism’, rides roughshod over our ancient rights and freedoms on a deceptive tide of faux self-righteousness. Now many more of us have at last awoken to the deep and abiding threat posed by this, ‘The New World Order Project’, as it approaches its apogee.
But, still, at least for the moment, the Iron Fist of the ruling elite continues to strike — mostly whilst covered with its ever-thinning velvet glove of dissimulating legality. Thus the Junta’s apparatchiks and enforcers must, at least when exposed to public scrutiny, be seen to function within the existing legal framework of the State, within the power-limiting — and to them annoying — constraints of its statutes. Those statutes oblige them to impartially and openly serve the commonalty as a whole without fear or favour, rather than from behind a veil of smoke and mirrors. And they failed this day because they had tried to cross what became a bridge too far for them — a bridge that was at last properly defended.
Hence, on the morning of the 14th of April, 2016, during the trial of Mr. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and the consequent public exposure therein of the series events leading up to his prosecution (or, as his Counsel, Mr. Richard Kovalevsky QC, so eloquently put it, “This preposterous prosecution!”) we were given a short but definitive peek behind the veil and were able to cast our eyes upon the draconian future so long planned for us in the venal corridors of power.
It was there that day that the establishment’s long exercised practice of first ridiculing, then demonising and then destroying those who would protest or resist their social re-engineering was clearly seen in all of the gruesome reality of its final phase.
A Magistrates’ Court
For the benefit of non-British readers and those who are British but are unfamiliar with HMCS (Her Majesty’s Court Service) I offer a brief résumé of the structure and functions of English and Welsh Magistrates’ Courts (Scotland does it a little differently).
A Magistrates’ Court is a lower court and cases are heard by a bench of three, sometimes two, unpaid lay judges (JPs) — they are named after their original forbears who were charged with keeping the sovereign’s peace — or by a paid District Judge (a DJ), normally an experienced professional lawyer. JPs are nonetheless extensively well=trained, monitored and mentored throughout their early tenure and are chosen from local citizens of good character.
The lead Magistrate, known as the Chairman, is addressed in court as ‘sir’ or ‘madam’ and the magistrates collectively as ‘your worships’. The other two magistrates are known as ‘wingers’. All decisions are made collectively. The Chairman’s opinions carry equal weight with the other two, although in court the latter remain silent unless asked a question by the Chairman, to which they reply quietly into his ear behind a covering palm. The Chairman is the only one who asks questions of members the legal teams and addresses and directs the body of the court in general. Also present is a Clerk of the Court who is a qualified solicitor or barrister and sits immediately below the bench facing the courtroom, and whose function is to offer to the bench advice on points of law.
Peterborough Magistrates Court is a modern purpose-built construct and the layout of its courtrooms are illustrated in the sketch (from memory) below. In their own way these rooms do give a small clue as to the changing face of due process, and readers might care to note that the public gallery is situated in the far rear of the courtroom, separated from the main room and fronted by heavy glass panels with only a narrow air/sound gap around them, rather than, as in the past as I best remember (in higher courts), open and to one side thus giving interested observers and the Press a lateral, panoramic audio-visual field view of the proceedings. (To my mind this arrangement is but another tiny, almost insignificant blow to the concept of open justice — or perhaps I’m just being my normal paranoid self )
|A.||Magistrates’ retiring room.|
|B.||Bench; M = Magistrate.|
|C.||Witness box. Not used during this case as the Prosecution failed to produce any and it thus came down to a matter of conflicting legal arguments.|
|D.||Clerk of the Court.|
|H.||Assistant Defence Counsel|
|I.||Public gallery. The seats small, folding and far more tightly packed together than illustrated.|
|J.||Other court functionaries — Usher(s), Probation Officers and companions to minors etc.
Caveat: I have a hearing problem (often known as ‘Gunners Ear’, and no derogatory interpretations of that phrase, if you please, or the Baron will apply his red pen with gay abandon) and even with my electronic ones stuffed in and wound up full chat I had great difficulty in following the verbal side of the proceedings coming through the thoroughly irritating little gap between the glass panels. Consequently most of the time I had to fall back on lip reading what the Chairman was saying, from a distance, and the occasional few words of other participants that came through, and also to reading their (rear) body language, which was very informative in ways perhaps not available to the aurally functional. Fortunately a nice young woman sitting next to me was kind enough to summarise the proceedings during the break we had whilst the bench was retired considering its verdict, and again when the trial concluded. So, whoever you are and should you come to read this report, I thank you once again for your most helpful courtesy.
That said, I obviously cannot claim to be quoting precisely and with absolute confidence what was actually said in Court that day. I must paraphrase what I think I heard, added to what I was told, and so this section of the report is but a brief collection of impressions thus garnered from several sources.
0915hrs: I arrived early anticipating a need to be in line for one of the limited number of seats in the public gallery, as I was expecting a crowd of Mr. Lennon’s supporters and a substantial media scrum. Of the former there were about a dozen and of the latter, with one exception I was possibly able to identify (Breitbart London’s Liam Deacon?), there were none!
0940hrs: Defence Counsel, Mr. Kovalevsky QC, and Mr. Lennon arrived. Mr. Kovalevsky was wheeling a large black carrier, which I presumed to contain the copious documentation (his brief) which he had prepared in order to present his case (see later) and after depositing this inside the courtroom he and his client disappeared into one of the consulting rooms.
0940-1125hrs: Much toing and froing — the Usher, two young women who were obviously either solicitors or barristers smartly dressed in virtually all black outfits and Mr. Kovalevsky in his pinstripe suit — this was not a County, Crown or High Court where Judges, Counsel and court officials are bewigged and robed (a much more intimidating atmosphere than in a Magistrate’s Court, I can assure you).
1125hrs: Public gallery opened and was mostly filled.
1130hrs: “All rise!” as the bench entered, seated themselves and then invited the court to do the same. Proceedings began.
1130hrs-1220hrs: Proceedings opened with the Crown Prosecutor stating the charge and outlining her case. Then Defence rose and spoke — I could not hear the plea given on Mr. Lennon’ behalf (he was never called upon to testify or speak for himself throughout the proceedings) but I presume it was ‘Not Guilty’.
Then I noticed that on Mr. Kovalevsky’s side of the table there were neatly arranged piles of paperwork, whilst in front of the Crown Prosecutor there was a small pile of papers that I presumed had come from what looked the file folder she had earlier carried in with her. To my simple mind the difference between the two sets of paperwork indicated extensive preparation on one side and possible overconfidence on the other. This opinion was later reinforced by the number of times she had to borrow and refer to paperwork from the Defence, and to which it had been referring. The bench certainly already held copies to which to refer, but how they were obtained I do not know.
Also, as I could not hear the verbal quotations from and the nature of these documents, I have no idea whether or not she should have been handed copies prior to the case, or that these documents were in fact concerning legal matters which she, with due diligence (rather than with establishment disinterest in such?), should herself have considered whilst preparing her case.
The case continued and what came out time and time again was that during his last ‘incarceration’ Mr. Lennon had repeatedly asked of the prison authorities that he be placed in solitary confinement because he feared for his life (summary execution?) at the hands of the Muslim prisoners, many of whom were serving life for murder and had nothing to lose, that this request was repeatedly denied him by the prison authorities, and he was locked alone in a wing and a cell with violent Muslims who were preparing to ‘napalm’ him — prison slang for a face full of boiling sugar water (torture, by non-State surrogates?) — and that he was forced to fight, in self-defence, for his sight and perhaps his life.
Furthermore it came out that at the time this ‘assault’ was investigated by the prison authorities and a decision not to take the matter any further — fear of their own complicity in this State-sponsored campaign to rid itself of this turbulent peasant, probably. Also it was revealed that after his release this incident was again investigated by other authorities, and it was again decided not to prosecute — possibly for the same reasons. Only later, when he appeared as a co-leader of the British branch of PEGIDA, was this current scurrilous prosecution launched.
These discussions continued for some time, together with contributions from the Clerk of the Court and questions from the Chairman, and eventually we came to the closing stages. I think the prosecution asked for an adjournment in order to be able to present evidence that the chairman obviously thought should have been presented in the first case. As best I could make out this revolved around information which Defence had rightly requested of the Crown and which had been promised by the latter, but was never forthcoming.
The Chairman repeatedly asked the Prosecutor for a binding commitment that if he did adjourn the court for this reason, said paperwork/evidence would be forthcoming from the Crown Prosecution Service. By this point it was evident to me from her body language that the crown Prosecutor was either unable to give this commitment, was being evasive or was agitated, confused, embarrassed or completely at her wits’ end — or several or all of those things.
Eventually, at 1220hrs-ish, perhaps in frustration at the fact the case was going nowhere, the Chairman closed the trial, the Court rose and the Magistrates retired to consider their judgement — Case Adjourned or Case Dismissed?
1300hrs: Court re-convened. After a short explanation or comment that I did not follow the Chairman declared ‘Case Dismissed’! There was a short, loud cry of joy from the public gallery as we all rose to leave but the Chairman kindly asked us to reseat ourselves, as Defence had subsequently requested that the court award costs. After a few minutes of discussion, with the Clerk of the Court contributing advice from what I suspect was Case Law, costs were awarded. I was/am not aware whether these were partial or in full as we then rose and left for the last time.
It was over, and the relief on Tommy’s face was palpable.
Afterwords and afterthoughts
As I left the court I had to stop off at security to pick up my pocket camera which had been politely confiscated during the entry body search. I found this rather odd as I and everyone else had been permitted to keep their camera-mounted mobile phones with them, although it was a requirement that they be switched off in the courtrooms proper, but not in the general environs. As I was retrieving my camera one of the security guards asked me what the verdict had been and I replied “Case dismissed with costs awarded.” The guard turned towards a colleague and they both quietly smiled at each — a revealing moment indeed.
Secondly, I had arrived at court that morning under a dark, drizzly overcast. When I departed I walked out into bright sunshine and I couldn’t help but think someone else might be smiling on us that day.
Finally, as one of my esteemed stoic namesakes, Marcus Aurelius Seneca II, once said — “You cannot enslave a man who is prepared to die.” I am of the opinion that if enough of us adopted that stance it wouldn’t be too long before we had the establishment ‘bastardi’ firmly by their ‘testibulae’, and we could then settle their hash once and for all.
— Seneca III, Middle England, and in a cheerful mood for once on this Ides of April 2016.
When the word first came out that Tommy was to be charged I commented on the fact that it was curious that the powers that be had denied his request that he be tried by a jury of his peers and assigned the case to a lower court instead.
Upon reflection I suspected that such things are not done by accident or out of any sense of justice or compassion but always for reasons advantageous to the (hidden?) objectives of the State and detrimental to the accused, so I decided to look deeper into this.
And, lo and behold! it eventuates that guilty convictions by Magistrates’ courts run around the 98% mark whilst those of trial by juries around the 80%. Furthermore lower courts attract far less media attention and reporting (normally only from the local press) than higher courts which in part may account for the notable absence of the ‘Fourth Estate’ in Peterborough on Friday.
Also, in Magistrates’ Courts offenders are normally represented by solicitors, friends or, foolishly, themselves, and lower court benches rarely have to make judgement in the face of the legal expertise of a Silk.
Indeed the Junta’s apparatchiks were looking to quietly take game, set and match well out of the public eye, and they almost succeeded.
Seneca III 17 April 2016 A.D.
For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.