In other words, despite what all the (leftist) media and judge pushed, Tommy Robinson did nothing wrong. This isn't said by your right-wingers, or Tommy Robinson supporters, but so says The Crown Court.The court agrees that the judge should not have commenced the hearing of contempt
proceedings that day. Once the appellant had removed the video from Facebook, there
was no longer sufficient urgency to justify immediate proceedings [62]. In those
circumstances it would have been preferable to adjourn, as had happened in the
Canterbury proceedings. No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the
appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered. In
both the short explanation given by the judge of the general nature of the alleged
contempt and the sentencing remarks, there was reference to matters that could not
been a breach of the section 4(2) order. [64]. The failure to follow Part 48 Crim PR
was more than technical [66]. There was no clarity about what the appellant was
admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced. Finally, further difficulties arose
from the limited opportunity that counsel had to investigate mitigation [68]. There
was little else which counsel could have done within the constraints under which he
was working. The level of detail which could be provided to the court was very
limited and there was no opportunity to obtain character references [69]. A sense of
proportion must be retained. Where a custodial term of considerable length is being
imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained
of [69]; a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within
five hours of the conduct taking place [8].
The order at Leeds Crown Court was also erroneously drawn up to suggest the
appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence rather than having been committed
for contempt of court [70]. Errors like this have serious consequences upon the
classification of prisoners, resulting in the deprivation of privileges [74] and release
on licence [75]. In this case, it also resulted in the erroneous imposition of a victim
surcharge [76].
The finding of contempt in Leeds is quashed [77]. All consequential orders fall away.
The court remits the matter of alleged contempt at Leeds Crown Court to be heard
again before a different judge [78]. The appellant is granted conditional bail pending
the rehearing [86].
Nonetheless, he was arrested, thrown in prison, put in solitary confinement, and went through all that mentioned in the Fox interview... but I'm sure many don't give a damn because in their minds he deserved all he got anyway for his critical views of Islam. Right Melanie?
Let me ask, where is the value of tolerance and freedom of expression?
