Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has been cleared of failing to comply with a police dispersal direction.
Robinson, real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, 41, was accused of failing to comply with a direction issued under section 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
He has been cleared of the offence during a trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 23rd April 2024.
Having heard the prosecution's case - which was, quite frankly, abysmal - District Judge Daniel Sternberg, presiding over the trial, concluded that there was no case to answer. In other words, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, no properly-directed and reasonable tribunal of fact could find the offence proved to the required standard.
The offence was said to have taken place on Sunday, 26th November 2023, when Robinson attended a protest march against anti-semitism in central London.
He was accused of failing to comply with a section 35 direction when he refused to leave the area outside the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand.
By way of context, I should explain that a section 35 direction can only be issued where an officer of at least inspector rank has granted an authorisation under section 34 of the Act. Such an authorisation can only be granted for a maximum of 48 hours.
It now transpires that the section 35 direction Robinson was arrested over was issued outside the time and locality to which the section 34 authorisation applied.
Inspector Steve Parker-Phipps, who granted the section 34 authorisation, told the court that because his laptop was almost dead, he mistakenly timed and dated it as 10 am on 24th instead of 10 am on 26th November. That being the case, the authorisation had already lapsed by the time Robinson was arrested on the afternoon of 26th November.
Alasdair Williamson KC, defending, put it to Inspector Parker-Phipps: "This document is not correct, is it? Can we have any confidence that a lawful order was in place?"
The officer replied: "No."
With that it was game over. How could the prosecution possibly prove its case?
It also turns out that even if the section 34 authorisation had been valid, the manner in which the officer made the section 35 direction was defective. This is because the officer making the direction failed to take into account Robinson's claims of acting as a journalist at the protest - which, given his vast following, seems an entirely reasonable claim - and also gave insufficient time for Robinson to leave the area as directed.
This is a complete and utter shambles. How many reviewing Met and CPS lawyers have overlooked the glaringly obvious flaws in this prosecution? Did they feel compelled to get it "over the line" due to the high profile nature of the defendant?
A total waste of time, effort and public funds in prosecuting an offence that simply didn't exist. I take personal offence that such a fundamentally flawed, poorly prepared case has been pushed in the direction of the court. It's an insult. As if that's not bad enough, Robinson will undoubtedly now receive tens of thousands in compensation as a result of his unlawful arrest and detention.
This whole episode is absolutely cringeworthy.