Streetwise Professor

May 28, 2018

Thank God for the Revolution, But Don’t Take It For Granted

Filed under: Politics — The Professor @ 8:10 pm

Two things from Europe are worth some discussion.

In Italy, the president, Sergio Mattarella, rejected a proposed government advanced by a coalition of populist parties from both left and right.  In the words of the FT, Mattarella “faced down” the populists–who just happened to have won the elections, and who trounced the “mainstream” EU-philic parties.  In so doing, the president was following hallowed EU tradition: the proles will vote until they get it right!

Ostensibly the reason for the rejection was the inclusion of a hardcore opponent of the Euro as the Finance Minister.  No doubt that was a convenient pretext.

The EU proclaims that it is democratic, and EU politicians routinely blast Trump and Orban and others for being authoritarian.  The EU is in fact demonstrably anti-democratic, and objectively far more authoritarian than those it excoriates as such.  Mattarella’s actions are clearly authoritarian and anti-democratic.

No doubt the EU sees Italy’s incipient rebellion against it, and the Euro, as a mortal threat.  They should.  But the reaction–thwarting the results of an election, rather than mounting a persuasive campaign that appeals to voters and addresses their concerns–reflects a weird combination of arrogance and defensiveness.  This is the reaction of frightened people who understand at some level that theirs is a deeply flawed project, and that they have no idea on how to address these flaws.  S0 rather than addressing the sources of discontent, or even attempting to understand them in a serious way, they attempt to suppress its expression–even (especially?) when that expression occurs at the ballot box.  Incapable of facing them down in an election, the EU oligarchy must resort to facing them down through undemocratic means.

The other case is that of Tommy Robinson in the UK.  Robinson is a notorious critic of Muslim immigration into the UK.  He has been routinely accused of “racism” (though last time I checked, Islam was not a race): given the promiscuity with which that term is thrown about, I always treat it with skepticism.  It is the default way in establishment circles to discredit those who challenge orthodoxy, a low form of ad hominem intended to silence and ostracize.  Being an actual racist may be a sufficient condition for being called a racist, but it is not a necessary one.  So the fact that someone is called a racist tells me exactly nothing.

Robinson is in the news–well, sort of, as will soon become clear–for having been arrested and incarcerated (after a “trial” lasting minutes), for livecasting from the outside of a courthouse where a group of child rapists, who happen to be Muslim, are on trial.

The charge against Robinson was that he violated the terms of his suspended sentence.  Said sentence was not for any conduct remotely related to his activism, or racism, but for providing misleading information on a mortgage application. (Arguably the original charge was pretextual, but leave that aside for the moment.)  But the judge leapt at the opportunity to clap Robinson behind bars for daring to call attention to one of the most sordid and colossal failures of the British establishment.*

But that’s not the most outrageous thing here.  The judge also imposed a gag order forbidding any reporting on Robinson’s arrest and incarceration in the British press.  Several outlets that had posted articles online immediately took them down.

This is revealing on so many levels.  Again, it betrays a deep fear–bordering on panic–in the establishment of the wrath that hoi polloi may visit on them.  (Tim Newman argues this persuasively.) The judge obviously fears that Robinson may become a cause célèbre, meaning that the judge believes that large numbers of Britons are “racists” just like Tommy Robinson who might rally around him and challenge the elite.

Again, not the act of a confident elite–the act of a very shaken one.  (Brexit likely being a major contributor to this self-doubt.)

Further, it illustrates the degree of intimidation and fear among the hoi polloi that the elite fears.   Tommy Robinson is hardly a polished fellow.  He is arguably a dodgy one.  His name is itself revealing.  It is not his given name, but a pseudonym taken from a prominent football hooligan in his hometown of Luton.

But as the judge clearly fears, Robinson evidently represents the views of a large portion of the British populace.  Yet though many agree, few speak out, and it is left to a marginal and truculent figure to launch a kamikaze attack on the system.  This illustrates the relentless and ruthless application of social pressure by the establishment–the politicians, the media, and the police, who repeatedly tell people that their social media posts are being monitored for “hate speech”–and the consequent intimidation of pretty much everybody but the likes of Tommy Robinson and a few like hi.

That is, silence and preference falsification are the rational responses of those who are deeply uneasy about the social changes that the UK has undergone.  These responses are decidedly characteristic of repressive societies, not free ones.

The UK at present differs from China’s “Social Credit” system in degree, but not in kind. Social control enforced by the threat of ostracism and even imprisonment is a pervasive reality.

To which I say: thank God for the Revolution, and the Bill of Rights.  There is no right to free speech in the UK as guaranteed by the First Amendment–and people are quite aware of that, and trim their expression accordingly.

I also repeat something that I have said often: the UK is the US’s Ghost of Christmas Future. Many of the same forces and fissions that are manifest in the Robinson affair are operating in the US.  Again, the US has a better institutional bulwark against that, but given the disproportionate influence of the established elite in the institutions of government, the courts, media, and higher education, that is hardly secure.

There is also a more militant (Jacksonian) strain in the US, and it operates from a rather broad geographic base, which given the Constitution has political power (hence the left’s hostility to the Electoral College and the Senate).  This geographical divide also gives many people a sense of solidarity and strength which makes them more willing to speak out: many Texans (e.g.) are willing to be more outspoken because the disapproval or ostracism of coastal elites has little adverse effect on them, and may indeed even bring approval from those in their lives who matter to them.

But progressivism is relentless, and American progressives want the US to be more like the UK, and the EU, with them in charge and the rest of us playing the part of obedient plebs.

So thank God for the Revolution, but don’t take it for granted.

*It is a revealing commentary on the Animal Farm some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others reality of modern Britain that in this day of the #MeToo movement, where the British press–and the FT in particular–goes on and on about gender pay equity and the lack of women in corporate board rooms, that anyone who dares speak out about the systematic rape of young women throughout Britain is running grave personal and legal risks.  So is mistreatment of women–including rape–a big deal, or isn’t it? Apparently it depends on who does the mistreating, and what women are the victims.

Another observation of some note is that Robinson’s recording of the exterior of a British courthouse is considered a crime in a country where every public space is constantly under video surveillance.  That speaks to the issue of repressiveness in Britain.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Although you can’t exaggerate the parallels to much, this period of history we’re living through bears more than a few resemblances to the 1930’s, people seem to forget that Nazism and Communism didn’t emerge from a vacuum, it was by ignoring the will of the people and continuing down the same dead-end path that the “moderate” (for the time anyway) parties were overtaken by the more extremists elements.

    Look at what’s happening in Europe today, social-democrat parties have all but collapsed, and what’s filling the void? Populists.

    The ruling class ought to take heed of what’s coming their way, what comes after populism (if it’s ignored) won’t be pretty, unfortunately, they seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Comment by WZ — May 28, 2018 @ 9:33 pm

  2. What would you say if I told you that the Revolution was the CAUSE of the phenomenon you observe? I recommend Moldbug’s “Gentle Introduction.”

    Comment by Thomas Jefferson — May 29, 2018 @ 8:05 am

  3. […] This is not therefore, perhaps at least, quite what some might think it is. Even those I like and admire on near all matters. […]

    Pingback by Tommy Robinson's 13 Month Jail Sentence – You Be The Judge | The Continental Telegraph — May 29, 2018 @ 8:25 am

  4. WZ, populist is a meaningless word.

    Can we consider Obama a populist (Hope! Change! You can keep your doctor!)? Is Trump a populist (Tax cuts! Here you go; Nuclear deal will be terminated! Here you go)?

    For me Obama, Clinton, Pelocy and current leftist establishment are populists – no doubt. All they want is power and money (oh… those fancy Netflix contracts…) and will trade any words to get what they want.

    Comment by Aleksandr Bogdashin — May 30, 2018 @ 4:43 am

  5. Here’s an alternative view of the Tommy Robinson case, by someone who may well know what he’s talking about.

    Comment by dearieme — May 30, 2018 @ 5:04 am

  6. very interesting, dearieme

    very interesting – it does appear he knows what he’s talking about – the barrister, I mean

    on another note – here’s another reason not to take anything for granted

    very informative and very detailed presentation by Dr. Karber at West Point, published April 19,2018

    Rooshan tactics far more lethal than buying ads on Facebook

    and far more lethal than populists

    The Russian Way of War

    Comment by elmer — May 30, 2018 @ 7:55 am

  7. I think some clarifications are due there:

    – The EU hasn’t forced the Italian president to do anything. The markets did that all on their own, and the alarmed president has taken a constitutional (arguably constitutional, at least…) action to force a new election. Personally, I think his actions were undemocratic and will ultimately prove counterproductive to his goals, but I don’t think there is a good argument to say that the EU made him do it. Not yet anyway: The Greeks can attest that the EU isn’t above a bit of pushing on governments, but I really don’t think that Italy is at that point.

    – I agree that the constant shouts of “racist” are getting ridiculous at times, but just because Muslims aren’t a race doesn’t mean that it’s OK to go around discriminating against them. By saying Islam is “not a race” and then considering the point closed, one is ignoring the actual bigotry that often causes the accusation of racism in the first place.

    – I do find the UK’s CCTV to be a bit on the heavy side, but having lived in a French city that previously didn’t have it and now does, I feel that the extra security is totally worth it. Also, is an American honestly well-placed to lecture about governments spying on their citizens?

    – Finally, it is worth noting that it is illegal to film a courthouse in the UK to avoid prejudicing a trial, which seems pretty reasonable in my book. Forbidding reporting on it seems draconian to me, but the picture is not as black and white as it first appears.

    All that being said, I think that The Prof and Tim Newman are onto something about the increasing dissatisfaction with very extreme forms of political correctness…

    Comment by HibernoFrog — May 30, 2018 @ 10:38 am

  8. I tried to post these two comments to the Secret Barrister’s blog but he closed comments after the first two (actually, I’m sure there were three when I posted, but there are only two now!):

    Mr B J Mann says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 29, 2018 at 11:38 pm

    1. Why was Tommy Robinson arrested?

    “……West Yorkshire police, having been alerted to his activities, arrested Lennon at the scene.”

    I’d heard that he was filming from a point agreed with the police: is that not true?!

    2. What are reporting restrictions?

    “The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done.”

    What were the reasons for his secret trial (is it true it was secret even from his solicitor?!)?!

    “However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations……”

    I’d read he’d been dragged off to court because he’s breached terms of a suspended sentence, so that’s not the case?!

    “…..One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of grooming rings involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end.”

    Is that why the police don’t go to extreme lengths to publicise details of the defendants in “Grooming” Gang trials to ensure all possible victims come forward to “corroborate” the existing evidence?!

    Unlike in ordinary rape trials?!?!

    But, wait, in ordinary rape trials how do the police “avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked…. reporting of all of them”?!

    Does this mean that all people convicted of rape following police (and media?!) publicity should be freed and have their convictions overturned?!

    “….On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?”

    But what about reporting on his own case? Surely that could be done with details of the rape trial being redacted?!

    “This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.”
    “Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.”

    Why is this OK:

    “…..In all the 29 defendants face a total of more than 170 charges…..”

    “…….They appeared in groups before district Judge Michael Fanning during a lengthy court sitting and are next due to appear at Leeds Crown Court on 11 May…..”

    Plus a full listing of names, ages and all charges of the 29 defendants!?!?

    3. But I heard Tommy Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. What is a breach of the peace? How is a breach of the peace caused by someone simply filming?

    “…..The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are ***reasonable*** grounds to ***fear*** that a demonstrator or protestor is ***likely*** to ***incite*** violence, even violence against themselves. This *appears* to be applicable to the present case. Robinson *provocatively* filming defendants, selected *deliberately* by ethnicity, and streaming on Facebook for the *edification* of his *cult*, is the *kind* of thing which *could*, it *might* be *argued*, lead to a breach of the peace.”

    Is that the level of legal argument in court these days?!

    5. So back up a step – what exactly is contempt of court?

    “…..The law(s) of contempt are designed to safeguard the fairness of legal proceedings and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court.”

    No further comment required!

    6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

    “On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (***Asian***) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing ***Muslim*** child rapists”

    So you’re saying they weren’t British, they were Asian?

    And they weren’t Muslim, they were Zoroastrian, or Buddhist, or Jewish or that other religion, you know, the Middle Eastern one, that was found in the other half of Iran, the other half of Afghanistan, across North Africa (until something strange happened), it’ll come to me!

    Yes?! Is that your point?!?!

    7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

    “….This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon….”

    You mean like Cliff Richard’s?!

    “We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.”

    So why do the police advertise and publicise (non “Asian”) rape defendants?

    Can you do that with people accused with burglary or GBH?!

    Ever been punched by this man or seen him loitering around your house around the time you were burgled (even if you haven’t – yet – reported it)?!

    “….it is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty.”

    I take it all the false accusers, including in the police and CPS, in all the recent failed rape cases are being prosecuted for contempt of court as we speak?!

    “It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists…..”

    Why is it OK for you to prejudge the entire Asian continent as “Asian” accused rapists when they are MUSLIM gangs?

    Especially as the “race” of Asians have a longer history of legal protection than the “religion” of Islam?!

    8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?

    “…..In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists”…..”

    But did he?!

    9. What did he go and do?

    “As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants”

    Again, did he?!

    10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

    “…….offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away….. Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by a barrister and would have received full legal advice.”

    Is it true his own lawyer in London had been told he was being released and he had to rely on one provided by the court?!

    “He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions….”

    So secret to the country at large!

    How many members of the general public, never mind his family, employers, supporters, associates, (own legal team) etc, were in a position to see for themselves the impartiality and lack of prejudice in this non-secret trial?!

    “…media circus… orchestrated attempt at martyrdom… deranged followers… far-right” (where do you put Mussolini? Hitler?!)

    “…judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts…”

    So not the sharpest tool on the bench then!

    “….As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others [why bring them up?!]) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial…”

    As for your response, so you’ve given two examples of only Yaxley-Lennon being the subject/victim of that.

    And none of any other person.


    Clearly the guy isn’t the nicest of people, and clearly he’s been involved in some pretty scummy activities (eg football hooliganism) and some pretty high class ones (“mortgage fraud” – bet there are no policemen, barristers or judges that have inflated their earnings to get a bigger mortgage, or perhaps they don’t need to, not least because they aren’t likely to be driven out of their homes and need to stump up for something safer and more secure?!).

    But equally clearly there have been a lot of politically motivated prosecutions and sentences!

    I thought I’d heard good things about the Secret Barrister Blog, but I must be thinking of some other.

    “…former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan…. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name [so that his home and family can be attacked again, and even residents of former homes, again?!]… hordes… storming [you mean like storm-troopers? storm-front, is it?!]… knuckle-dragging cheerleaders… his racists-in-arms… Nazi-themed march… his cult… preaching to his online followers… diatribe… ye of little brain.. tub thumping… people like Yaxley-Lennon… media circus… orchestrated attempt at martyrdom… deranged followers… far-right” [where do you put Mussolini? Hitler?!] “UKIP” [why bring them up?!]

    The writer of this prejudiced hit piece seems to epitomise everything wrong with our “justice” system “liberal” establishment!

    Mr B J Mann says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 30, 2018 at 12:07 am


    In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:

    11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

    “This is quite something. But, sadly [your prejudices are showing again], Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available,”

    As mentioned earlier, the “conspiracy theory” I’d hear was that his own solicitor had been told by the police he was being released and so their services weren’t required.

    “but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences.”

    So never even one single contempt case?

    And did he have even 16 minutes? even 16 seconds?! experience of this one?!?!

    “As an independent barrister, he prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.”

    But we still have more questions than answers, your bonus Q&As notwithstanding!

    Comment by Mr B J Mann — May 31, 2018 @ 5:55 pm

  9. This wass a very odd interpretation on the Tommy Robinson case. There is nothing at all outragous about what happened here.

    Tommy Robinson went to jail for contempt of court – an offence in all common law countries including the USA. Not for his previous mortgage fraud or any of the many of other of his convictions (mostly minor to be fair but funnily enough including a conviction for frauduantly/illegally entering the United States).

    His actions threatened to undermine the rape trial and were completely stupid as they could have allowed the rapists to walk free on a technicality.

    He was convicted of contempt previously but was given a suspended sentence. If someone is convicted of a crime in the US and are out on parole and do the same thing again – having publicly announced in advance their intension, then I would also expect a fairly swift response by US law enforcement also. I see nothing to be outraged by here.

    Comment by derriz — June 1, 2018 @ 11:18 am

  10. Yes, derris, but it’s more complicated than that:

    There are questions about whether he was doing whatever he did where he did it because he was told he could by the police.

    Whether what he did could have undermined the case (he was reading out the list of accused and charges, published by the press, on the web, in court, and to the jurors already).

    Whether he was in contempt of court or his suspended sentence conditions (he was not to call people Muslim paedophiles or Muslim rapists until they’d been found guilty, but he didn’t call them Muslim and he interjected “alleged” before reading out each charge, so less prejudicial than the court list he was reading out).

    How and why he was arrested (for supposed breach of the peace, not contempt of court or breach of conditions).

    Whether his own lawyer was told he wasn’t being tried (technically he wasn’t tried so technically it wouldn’t have been a lie, but it would have prevented proper preparation and defence as the lawyer didn’t attend the “trial” or try to have it stopped or rescheduled).

    How many minutes his court lawyer had to prepare (he was in jail within two or three hours of being arrested apparently).

    What legal advice he received (eg to plead guilty).

    And what if any threats or promises were made (he, his home, and even his former homes have been attacked, he was badly injured himself in prison, and a person who was jailed – for a year I think – for throwing bacon at a mosque was killed in prison – if he’s been threatened with a long stretch in a prison with a large population of violent and terrorist Muslims….?!).

    This isn’t about Robinson, suspended sentences, contempt of court, or undermining rape cases:

    It’s about possible the rule of law, apparent abuse of power, and what looks like secret political trials!

    Comment by Mr B J Mann — June 3, 2018 @ 8:44 am

  11. What?

    The facts are simple: a man serving a suspended sentence breaks the terms of his probation; as a result, the man goes to jail to serve his sentence. Activating a suspended sentence does not necessitate a criminal trial. You seem to have quite confused ideas about how the criminal justice system works in the UK.

    There is no political angle or anything like that in this case no matter how hard you look at it.

    Comment by derriz — June 3, 2018 @ 3:38 pm

  12. If it’s so simple, explain HOW and WHY he “breaks the terms of his probation”.

    He was given very clear instructions as to what he wasn’t to do during his suspended sentence.


    And he couldn’t be in contempt of court for jeopardising that or a later trial because he was reading out information (with the addition of “alleged” before charges) that was already in the public domain published on the web and on the court noticeboard and presumably already read out in court to the jury.

    And is the way that criminal justice system works in the UK that the accused are denied their own legal team (if it’s true that he was)?!

    Comment by Mr B J Mann — June 5, 2018 @ 6:52 pm

  13. There was a media blackout ordered for the Robinson trial (in case reporting on the Robinson case would jeopordise the rape trial) which meant a whole load of conspiracy theories were circulating.

    The media (yes the MSM) challenged the blackout and won the right to report on the Robinson trial so you can read all about his trial now. Yes he did have a legal team (since they have made press statements).

    Comment by derriz — June 10, 2018 @ 3:33 pm

  14. If #13 was meant as a response to #12 it has absolutely nothing to do with any question raised in #12!

    No, he didn’t have a legal team, he had a court appointed lawyer who knew nothing about the background and probably had minutes to prepare.

    We STILL have no answers on how he broke the conditions on his suspended sentence as he complied with the conditions.

    We also STILL have no answers on how he was in contempt of court.

    Note he was reading out information PUBLISHED ON THE COURT NOTICE BOARD (but with “allegedly” inserted before the charges)!

    And apparently if he had said or done anything potentially prejudicial that is not enough (though that apparently doesn’t stop the judiciary pretending it is).

    It would appear that there has to be an actual substantial and significant risk of prejudice, not a mere assumption of possibility, PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that he risked prejudicing the trial.

    And the judge also should have taken into consideration eg that in the months leading up to the next trial the prejudicial actions will fade from the news, and from people’s memories and/or that potential jurors will be exposed to the same material from other sources.

    In fact, all that should have been considered before both the reporting restrictions on the “Grooming” trial and the “suspected Breach of the Peace (no such crime!)/contempt/prejudice trial of Robinson!

    Was all this explained to Robinson?

    Did “his” lawyer remind the judge of his duties and responsibilities to consider such matters?!

    Note regarding imposition of reporting restrictions the guidelines are supposedly:

    Postponement of fair and accurate reports
    • Under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the court may postpone publication of a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of its proceedings where that is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings
    • The power is strictly limited to fair, accurate reports and contemporaneous reports of the proceedings
    • The court must be satisfied that a substantial risk of prejudice would arise from such reports
    • If the concern is potential prejudice to a future trial, in making that judgment, the court will bear in mind the tendency for news reports to fade from public consciousness and the conscientiousness with which it can normally be expected that the jury in the subsequent case will follow the trial judge’s directions to reach their decision exclusively on the basis of evidence given in that case
    • Before making a s.4(2) order, the court must be satisfied that the order would eliminate the risk of prejudice and that there is no less restrictive measure that could be employed
    • If satisfied of these matters, the court must exercise its discretion balancing the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice against the strong public interest in the full reporting of criminal trials

    Comment by Mr B J Mann — June 11, 2018 @ 2:35 pm

  15. “.it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.”

    – Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia,” 1782

    “…the great principle of Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury…are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments.”

    – Winston Churchill 1943

    “His Lordship may tell you that to his heart’s content. As a great Lord Chief Justice of England, a judge superior in rank to any in this Court, once said, “It is the duty of the Judge to tell you as a jury what to do, but you have the power to do exactly as you like.” And what you do, Members of the Jury, is a matter entirely between God and your own consciences….”

    – Horace Rumpole 1998

    Comment by Mr B J Mann — June 11, 2018 @ 5:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress