The Liberty of the Subject is Desperately Important – If it is to be Removed we are Entitled to an Explanation.

I haven’t seen the terms of the injunction and must, to some extent, guess what I am allowed to say. I will tread very warily.

A judge, I don’t know whether I am allowed to name him and will assume I am not, has conducted a court hearing into the antics of a rather obnoxious chap called Tommy Robinson. I know the result of that hearing, but the judge has ordered that I must not reveal it. I do seem to be able to say that, as a result of the hearing, Mr Robinson is no longer at liberty. More than that I may not say without risking incarceration myself. I am not, for instance, allowed to tell you whether the judge thought it would be reasonable for Mr Robinson to be represented by a lawyer.

No, there is slightly more, I think, which the judge will allow me to say. Mr Robinson was hauled up in front of the judge because he has extreme right wing opinions. No one may, these days, be appointed to the judicial bench unless he supports the opinions of Tony Blair. My guess, but it has to remain a guess because the judge has refused to explain his decision, is that he considers those with right wing opinions should not be at liberty.

And that is it. An English court has incarcerated a man for holding unpopular opinions in peace time and has both refused to explain why and ordered that anyone who reports what was said at the hearing should be imprisoned.

Of course, because I have a lively imagination, I can conjure up reasons why whatever it is Mr Robinson was up to should not, at least for a while, be revealed to the public. But I simply can’t think of any rational explanation for why the judge, who, as I have said, has refused to give us any indication of why he came to the conclusion which he will not allow me to reveal, thinks any decent English judge could deprive a subject of Her Majesty of his liberty and decline to give the slightest hint of why he has done so.

I have probably been unfair to the anonymous judge. He may well not have done whatever it is he did which resulted in Mr Robinson being in prison, as a result solely of his commitment to New Labour. There could have been good reasons for the decision. But his refusal to give any explanation at all was bound to lead to those of us who have concerns for the rights of the Queen’s subjects concluding that there could well have been grossly improper reasons for his orders.

Mr Robinson is, I think, a rather horrid chap. Those of my friends who are on the Left in politics will assume, because the man is on the Right, that I approve of him. They will say that I only suggest the anonymous judge should have treated him as a member of the human race because he is on the Right. Oh, how horribly wrong my friends are. I think all of Her Majesty’s subjects are entitled to the protection of the law. Had the incarcerated chap been one of Mr Corbyn’s anti-semite friends I would have been just as furious.

There can be no excuse for English judges imprisoning people without explaining in public why they are doing so.

Charles

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “The Liberty of the Subject is Desperately Important – If it is to be Removed we are Entitled to an Explanation.

  1. Thank you – I was waiting to see what you thought about this, Charles, since you are an expert in legal matters. I must say, speaking as one who knows little of the law, the case seems all wrong to me, and perhaps represents a downwards lurch in our traditional freedoms.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mr Robinson, aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon last year was given a suspended sentence for contempt of court, so his recent excapade in possibly similar circumstances is probably the reason why he is no longer at liberty.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You may, of course, be right. But My point is that it is thoroughly dangerous for judges to take to imprisoning people without explaining why. It is trite but still correct to say that justice should be seen to be done.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Of course, Charles, but maybe not if the contempt was with respect to an ongoing case? I don’t know, obviously but this could possibly be the reason for reporting restrictions.

        Like

        • To be fair, I am sure there must be reasons why some of what was said in court should not yet be revealed. But that does not excuse the judge’s decision to stifle the whole lot. He could easily have explained in broad terms why he did whatever it was that he did and why he had decided to delay a full explanation. It looks as though he chose not to do so because, poor chap, he had no idea that some of us think the liberty of the subject is important.

          Liked by 4 people

  3. Dammit, Charles. You have now got me all confused.
    Being a rather simple chap, I had come to the conclusion that this Lennon fellow, who goes under the name of Tommy Robinson, was such an obnoxious, long term criminal, that we are far better off when he is locked up out of harms way.
    If I understand correctly he has/had the potential to create a mistrial of a significant number of very nasty people, which ironically could cause them to be set free, the exact opposite of what Robinson wanted. This alone shows that he is not very bright.
    I assume that this is why he has been incarcerated quickly and “quietly”.

    On saying this, I suppose your last comment to Araminta does help with my confusion. The judge should have put more effort into finding the right words for informing the public. By not doing so, he may have fired up a hornet’s nest.

    Like

    • He would seem to be horribly nasty, But I am sticking to my guns. I don’t think judges should send nasty people to prison without explaining why. My modern colleagues at the Bar disagree with me. They think, so long as the defendant is Right wing, that imprisonment with no explanation is wonderful.

      Liked by 3 people

    • If I was planning to neuter freedom of speech, I might start by picking on those whom most reasonable people would think beyond the pale, not worth protesting over. I’d work out from there.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Injunction? No. Judge? Yes his name is now known everywhere except the UK (in fact 2 judges, a female one weighed in from Canterbury). Stephen Yaxley, also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon took the alias of Tommy Robinson (a Luton football supporter). I disagree with his Islamophobia but the legality (and morality of what Judge G******* M****** did) shows that the UK is a de facto police state.

    Like

  5. You disappoint me Charles but as a member of the Establishment yourself, I am not surprised.

    Disappointed because you dismiss Mr Robinson as a far right winger. I expected better than that. From where did you get that idea? Obviously not from his biography which I imagine you would only read under duress, but that does not protect you from my accusation of smearing him. I have read much of what Tommy has written and I know for certain that he is apolitical. In fact some of his views are perfectly liberal and well as being conservative. You then go on to call him a ‘rather horrid chap’ – why? You are insulting a successful champion of those who have suffered injustice in the courts and even violence at the hands of the police. He lives his life under threats of death against himself and his family. A family the police delight in frightening, they love to see his children cry because they know that is the only way they can hurt him. And a prison system that deliberately exposes him to deadly violence from prisoners who have sworn to kill him. Like attempting to disfigure or even kill him with molten sugar when the screws were mysteriously absent. Some of these muslim criminals have actually tried to blow him up and are serving longer than life sentences. What do they have to lose?

    Thankfully there are some of the Establishment who care for his safety. Malcolm Lord Pearson has wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid on Saturday saying “if Tommy is murdered or injured in prison he and others will mount a private prosecution against Mr Javid as an accessory, or for misconduct in public office.”

    Robinson is primarily concerned at the islamisation of our society, something you are probably unaware of in leafy Wimbledon where your only experience of islam is in passing the time of day with corner shop Ali. Tommy, like millions of our citizens, is concerned at the introduction of sharia in the UK and most of all with the failure and final reluctance of police and social services to protect tens of thousands of white British children from muslim murder and rape. All this is thoroughly documented and easily reached at a click of the mouse.

    And here is the nub of Tommy’s problem. By exposure and humiliation he has made powerful enemies who, for reasons I cannot fathom, are hell bent on importing tens, even hundreds of thousands of illegal muslim migrants. What is even more inexplicable is the denial of asylum to genuine Christian refugees who have been persecuted often by those very same immigrants who fraudulently claim asylum themselves.

    Yes, he has a colourful past but he is hardly a professional criminal and besides that is all behind him. He is brave and candid and, what your Establishment can never forgive him for, popular. Ordinary people know the truth about Stephen Lennon aka Robinson. What a pity a barrister with much time on his hands does not.

    Liked by 2 people

Add your comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s