Even if Tommy Robinson did technically break the law (and that appears uncertain), their piling an extra ten months onto the original three, and their moving him from Hull to Leicester where his life is at risk, shows either pure spite and vindictiveness, or an application of what is in effect Sharia criminal law. In Britain. By our own judiciary.
Various commentators, including – alas – our very own Nigel speaking on LBC radio, have said that Tommy ‘broke the law’, ‘disobeyed a Court Order’, and so brought his misfortunes on his own head. If this dismissive attitude takes hold, not only amongst the MSM and commentariat, but also amongst our own ranks, then Tommy’s fate will be sealed; he could spend a year in inhuman isolation, forgotten about.
The first point is: was Tommy actually, technically, guilty of Contempt of Court? Contempt of Court occurs, in this sort of case, when somebody publishes material that may unduly influence the jury one way or another, and may thereby distort the outcome of a trial. We therefore need to establish, both in the case of his original suspended conviction in Canterbury and the case of his additional one in Leeds, whether:
a) the jury had reached its verdict and delivered it, and the trial was ongoing purely for the purpose of the judge determining sentence. In this case whatever Tommy may have said into his mobile phone, standing outside the courthouse, even if immediately broadcast over the internet, would have been of no importance, since a judge is surely deemed not to be unduly susceptible to anything published over the internet.
b) had the jury not yet reached their verdict? Were they in the jury-room deliberating? And most importantly, wherever they were, did they have access to their mobile phones? Since a lot of other stuff on the internet can be prejudicial to a defendant and might influence a member of the jury unduly, one would expect that all jury members would have to hand in their mobile phones at some point in the trial. Were the jury made to hand in their mobiles at some point?
Now if they were made to hand over their mobiles at some point, and if Tommy’s supposedly prejudicial “broadcast” was made after this point, then whatever he may have said would be of no consequence, since the jury would have been unable to hear it.
c) it appears that the procedure for convicting someone of Contempt of Court is extremely summary, entirely at the discretion of the judge, with no arguments by lawyers for or against etc. This doubtless serves to enable a judge to keep order in the courtroom, by granting him exceptional powers of instant punishment like a sergeant-major over his troops.
Now even if the juries in Canterbury and Leeds did have access to their mobiles and might have seen Tommy’s comments before they had given their verdict, and thereby Tommy was technically guilty of Contempt of Court, the disproportion between the ton of bricks that has been unleashed upon his head and the negligent and lackadaisical manner in which the Pakistani-heritage Muslim child-rapists have been brought to book is still monstrous.
At Canterbury the judge gave him three months, suspended. At Leeds, for exactly the same offence, the judge gave him not another three months to be added on to the original three months, but an extra TEN months. This looks vindictive. If not, what is the judge’s justification for this extra harshness?
Was it that he felt it necessary to appease the Muslim community? To curry favour with the likes of Baroness Warsi, and what she said in the Lords?
They did not stop there. He was originally sent to Hull prison but then swiftly moved to Leicester prison, which we are told is full of jihadists who have sworn to kill him if they can. Lord Pearson has promised that he will personally take out a private prosecution against the Home Secretary if any harm comes to Tommy, and well done his lordship!
But as a result Tommy now faces 13 months in solitary confinement. This amounts to torture. Might I suggest that we all make an appeal to Amnesty International to adopt him as a prisoner of conscience, for that is what he actually is?
But are we actually talking about British law?
For one law that Tommy has most certainly broken is Sharia law – under which the prescribed penalty for what he did and does can be death. His being moved from Hull to Leicester prison with its high percentage of murderous jihadist inmates – on the watch of, even if perhaps not on the direct orders of, our Muslim Home Secretary? – means that this could be his fate, indeed one may be forgiven for joining the dots and thinking that this is indeed the intention.
Baroness Warsi said in the HoL that prison was “appropriate” for someone like him, an “appropriate place for someone who thinks, speaks, preaches and conducts himself as he does”. (Hansard). So does she want to apply the Sharia law of her spiritual homeland Pakistan to her adopted land of Britain? It is well known that in Pakistan, prison (if not worse) is inevitably meted out to any who preach against Islam.
We have a Pakistani-heritage Muslim Mayor of London, a Pakistani-heritage Muslim Home Secretary on whose watch a critic of Islam, in particular a critic of Pakistani-heritage Muslim child rapists, has been put in a place where the Sharia-ordained death penalty is likely to be visited upon him. And a Pakistani-heritage Muslim former chairman of the ruling Conservative party, who sits in the House of Lords and pontificates that a critic of Islam is in prison – the “most appropriate” place for him.
This is indeed what would have happened to Tommy in Pakistan, and is now – incredibly – happening to him in Britain.
If Tommy is not released, or worse, if he comes to harm in Leicester prison, then hardline Islamists in Britain will be able to write on our walls and on our bridges, and shout from the roof-tops: “SHARIA LAW RULES – OK”.