Hard to read the Appeal Court's criticism of the judge who banged Tommy Robinson up
and not conclude that his extraordinary actions were motivated by something other than the desire to see a fair trial. :rubchin:
Quote:
For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court
to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the
Rules gave rise to unfairness. There was no clarity about what parts of the video were
relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his
counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced. Indeed, we
would emphasise that, save for those cases involving obstructive, disruptive, insulting
or intimidating conduct in the courtroom or its vicinity or otherwise immediately
affecting the proceedings, the judge, having taken such steps as are necessary to bring
the misconduct to an end and mitigate its consequences, should usually resist the
temptation to initiate contempt proceedings on his or her own motion. In the
circumstances of this case, whilst the judge was entitled to deal with the contempt
himself, the urgency went out of the matter when the appellant agreed to take down the
video from Facebook. There should have been an adjournment to enable the particulars
of contempt to be properly formulated and for a hearing at a more measured pace, as
had happened in Canterbury. 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.
84. Even in those cases in which a summary determination is appropriate, whether
immediate or delayed, care must be taken to apply Part 48 of the Rules.
