The British court has made its decision: Tommy Robinson has been freed on bail.
This is a time for celebration, but it’s not a complete victory. The judges ruled that procedural rules had been violated in Tommy’s wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am trial and imprisonment on May 25. So he has been released on bail pending a new trial on the same charges (whatever those were). His next court appearance will be in October. It will be interesting to see what he says in public (if anything) in the two months between now and then.
This must be a tremendous relief for his wife and kids, and I’ll bet he’s glad to be home.
Below are excerpts from the report in the Grauniad:
Tommy Robinson freed on bail as court orders retrial
Appeal court quashes finding of contempt against English Defence League founder
Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League, is to be freed from prison after the court of appeal ordered that he should be retried on a contempt of court charge.
He has been held at Onley jail near Rugby after receiving a 13-month sentence for breaches of reporting restrictions at Leeds and Canterbury crown courts.
At the court of appeal on Wednesday, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, upheld the Canterbury conviction but said the ruling in Leeds was “flawed” and there should be a retrial.
Robinson, the appeal court said, would be released on bail on condition that he attended the retrial before the recorder of London at a date to be fixed and keep a distance of at least 400 metres from Leeds crown court.
In the ruling, the lord chief justice quashed the Leeds finding of contempt. That court hearing should not have proceeded immediately but waited to hear the case on a “fully informed basis”, he said.
The judgment added: “It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order.
“… The decision at Leeds crown court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for [part] of the rules gave rise to unfairness.
“… The judge might have referred the matter to the attorney general to consider whether to institute proceedings. That course would have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of celerity.”
Robinson’s supporters in the packed courtroom broke into applause as Lord Burnett announced the decision. The judge called for silence while he read a summary of the judgment.
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, supporters of Robinson and anti-racism protesters chanted rival slogans at each other separated by crowd barriers and police.
[…]
The London law firm Carson Kaye, which represented Robinson, thanked the court of appeal for its “detailed judgment”.
Its statement issued after the ruling on Wednesday, added: “The rule of law and the right to a fair hearing are fundamental to every individual and this ruling [is] an example of the procedural safeguards of the system. What makes the British system so unique is the ability to set aside personal feelings and deal with the law and each case on its merits.”
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Weyman Bennett, the joint national secretary of Stand Up To Racism, described the judgment as “mistaken”.
“We believe that it will encourage racists and Islamophobes to build and organise,” he said. “I believe if he was a black kid from Tottenham, where I’m from, he would still be in jail.”
Vince Crawthron, 70, a Royal Navy veteran, had travelled from Cwmbran in Wales to support Robinson. “Tommy has been unjustly imprisoned,” he said. “They want to silence him because he challenges the status quo.”
The Ukip leader, Gerard Batten — who spoke at a rally in support of Robinson in July — tweeted: “A word of appreciation for the Appeal Court today. They held up the best traditions of English law. Fair and impartial. But the conduct of the judge in the Leeds case needs looking at. That wasn’t fair or impartial.”
Weyman Bennett used to be Chair of United Against Fascism and also the Socialist Workers Party. Just so we know who we are dealing with here.
So if the procedural rules were violated against Tommy what about an investigation of the violators? We are not talking here about a simple mistake that could have been fixed if the prosecutors had cared about justice. They could have fixed a mistake in 2 or 3 days if they cared. Everyone knows the power elite in England want to shut Tommy up. To paraphrase Weyman Bennett if Tommy had been simply some anonymous white kid, or for that matter black or Asian kid who had been arrested on these trumped up charges he’d be sitting in jail with no chance of getting out before the sentence was served, instead of being let out after 2 and 1/2 months. Further how do they arrest someone and put him on trial without access to his attorneys from the beginning? How do they get away with that? And if Tommy is cleared in 2 or 3 months how does he get his 2 and 1/2 months of his life back?
So the comments about the best traditions of English law move me to say bull____!
For the few things I didn’t like about Christopher Hitchens….I sure wish he were around now to rip the heck out of these phony creeps.
Mike from Brooklyn
I guess our nearest British equivalent to Hitchens is not his brother Peter, who comes across as very condescending and superior (but less perceptive), but Douglas Murray, who is somewhat less so (and no friend of Tommy).
On the one hand, Robinson is out, able to take care of his family, and an inspiration to nationalists.
On the other hand, both the British establishment, and ordinary British citizens see that any British judge can clap a British citizen in the slammer for extended periods without a trial, and that unless the citizen has the funding or support to engage a prestigious law firm to go through two levels of appeal, the citizen will stay in the slammer.
How’s that for maintaining the British freedom of speech?
This is a lukewarm victory, at best. It seems to me that it only highlights how far backward Britain has travelled.
Not if you can go home!
This is wonderful news for Tommy and his family. It restores my faith (somewhat) in the English justice system.
However, this statement from today’s ruling is unsettling: ”It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order.” This shows that the Leeds judge had an unclear grasp of the situation, but went ahead and sentenced Tommy anyway. Many had questioned what exactly were the charges against Tommy, but in the rush of the mainstream media to jubilate, those voices were diminished.
But, note that this Guardian article firmly states that Tommy was sentenced to “a 13-month sentence for breaches of reporting restrictions at Leeds and Canterbury crown courts.” Now that the appeal judges have pointed out the failings in the imposition of that sentence (at least, as I understand it, in the case of Leeds it was unclear exactly what comprised the “breaches” or even if there were any) shouldn’t The Guardian’s wording be along the lines of: “purported breaches”or “alleged breaches” or even “breaches now in dispute.” In any case, The Guardian seems bent on perpetuating the travesty.
Note too this sly juxtaposition: “Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, supporters of Robinson and anti-racism protesters chanted rival slogans at each other separated by crowd barriers and police.” If the Guardian were an honest newspaper, this would read “so-called anti-racism protesters”—but then that wouldn’t convey the impression that Tommy’s supporters are racist.
And in the original article, The Guardian couldn’t resist including the lecture that the Leeds judge gave Tommy on the responsibilities of freedom of speech and the consequences of breaching a court order. Is The Guardian finding it hard to admit that Tommy was wronged by the English justice system?
How dare they let a dangerous criminal like Tommy out on bail! Meanwhile returned Brits who fought for ISIS roam the streets of the UK no-go zones.
Good news: Tommy Robinson, Europe’s Lion Heart and hero who wants to fend off the Europeans and their children, the tenfold miseries and catastrophes as those Europe experienced in WWI and II. But some people and all Traitors have become so mentally blind that he is the cause not the cure. Traitors think that if they are against “fascism, Nazism, and Patriotism, then they can avoid the bleak, dark hellish abyss that Europe is heading for at great speed. He wants to avoid similar fate to every European city as Amsterdam (link). When the disastrous truth about a city like Amsterdam flashed on the first page of a mainstream newspaper, it means things are really bad and they can’t hide the elephant any more:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/amsterdam-tourists-warned-city-no-13000278?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_Mirror_Nletter_DailyNews_News_mediumteaser_Image_Story&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter
Wisdom and common sense are the answer not empty rhetoric of “democracies”
Godlessness has proven to be even worse than believing in some god.
The Guardian is poison.
How many more more more more times do we have to say “But Islam isn’t a race.”
“Islamophobia”??
Are there people who will NEVER, EVER, learn??
For those who are indoctrinated from birth and taught to despise those who don’t join in lockstep with them? Their faculty for learning new political or religious ideas has atrophied. The blind cannot be taught to see, the cortical window for sight/vision has closed.